MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2337584090 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2015-4346

Abstract 4346: Prognostic gene signature for intermediate risk prostate cancer

2015· article· en· W2337584090 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Li, Robin Hallet, Ying Wu, Greg Pong, John A. Hassell, Sebastién J. Hotte, Mark Levine, Himansu Lukka, Anita Bane

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene signatureMedicineProstate cancerOncologyCohortInternal medicineCancerWatchful waitingGene expressionFramingham Risk ScoreDiseaseGenePathologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The over treatment of prostate cancer patients is a significant concern, as recent clinical trials suggest that many patients are over treated which can lead to significant patient morbidity. Although the Gleason score is a powerful predictor of lethal or indolent disease, a significant proportion (∼40%) of men present with early stage Gleason score (GS) 7 tumors, for whom prognosis is variable. The goal of this study is to develop and optimize a robust prognostic gene signature that can be utilized on formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) core biopsy tumor material to better classify patients with intermediate risk, GS 7 tumors into good and poor outcome groups. Three gene signatures were derived from publicly available gene expression profiles of the Swedish Watchful Waiting cohort. The Genomic Grade Index consisted of the top 25 molecular signatures discriminating between high (8, 9 & 10) and low (≤ 6) GS tumors. The Lethal Gene Score consisted of the top 25 molecular signatures discriminating between lethal and indolent disease within GS 7 tumors only. A network-based gene signature consisted of 88 genes which accurately stratified GS 7 patients into high risk and low risk groups, resembling the survival curves of high GS and low GS patients. The prognostic capacity of the combined gene signature was tested in silico on the gene expression profiles of the Mayo cohort. Results demonstrated the gene signature's highly robust capacity for differentiating low risk and high risk patients within GS 7 patients. The NanoString nCounter System will be used to quantify mRNA from prostate FFPE blocks to assess the expression of the 138 prognostic genes. 156 archived prostate tumor blocks will be collected from intermediate risk, GS 7 patients enrolled in the 2005 PR5 prostate trial, which also collected 12 years of clinical follow-up information. Results will be correlated with biochemical (PSA) failure rates and overall survival. In short, our findings provide proof-of-principle that through the use of gene signatures it is possible to separate prostate cancer patients of intermediate risk into good and poor outcome groups. Furthermore, they also identify multiple gene candidates whose expression could likely be formulated into a clinically applicable assay, the implementation of which could serve to stratify prostate cancer patients with tumors of intermediate risk into more accurate high and low risk groups. Citation Format: Brian Li, Robin Hallet, Ying Wu, Greg Pong, John Hassell, Sebastien Hotte, Mark Levine, Himansu Lukka, Anita Bane. Prognostic gene signature for intermediate risk prostate cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 4346. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-4346

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→