MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2494510295 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2016-1695

Abstract 1695: Vascularization of colorectal cancer liver metastasis: correlation with growth patterns

2016· article· en· W2494510295 on OpenAlexaff
Anthoula Lazaris, Abdellatif Amri, Pablo Zoroquiaín, Stephanie Petrillo, Rafif E. Mattar, Zu‐Hua Gao, Peter Vermeulen, Peter Metrakos

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiogenesisMetastasisColorectal cancerBevacizumabMedicineStromaPathologyCancerNeovascularizationCancer researchHypoxia (environmental)BiologyChemotherapyInternal medicineImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in North America. Approximately 50% of patients will be diagnosed with CRC liver metastasis (CRLM) during the course of their disease. Untreated, patients will survive for only a few months, but with chemotherapy, a median survival of 20 months can be achieved. At present, no reliable indicators exist to predict outcome or prognosis in treatable patients. Moreover, no biological parameters are currently being considered for patient stratification into different treatment groups. We examined CRCLM resected from patients and have identified two major histologic growth patterns (HGP): a desmoplastic (DHGP) pattern and a replacement (RHGP) pattern where tumor cells replace parenchymal cells in the liver plates. These HGP involve distinct modes of angiogenesis and host cell responses. Namely, liver metastases with a RHGP grow by co-opting the stroma, without hypoxia-induced angiogenesis and with little perturbation of the liver architecture. In contrast, metastases with a DHGP show characteristics of ongoing, hypoxia-driven angiogenesis including increased fibrin deposition at the tumour-liver interface and increased endothelial cell proliferation. In addition RHGP is associated with poor clinical response to bevacizumab chemotherapy. These differences suggest that the two patterns trigger distinct microenvironment responses and as a consequence, may initiate and utilize different modes of vascularization and expansion. Our hypothesis is that there are distinct gene expression signatures in the tumor and/or host compartments of different HGPs, which will shed light on the biological mechanisms underlying this diversity of HGPs. To test this hypothesis we: i) have extracted high quality RNA from lesions of chemonaïve patients and through RNAseq analysis identified gene expression differences between DHGP, RHGP lesions ii.) to further understand the role of tumor associated vascularity, we have stained different lesions (chemonaïve, chemo only and chemo + bevacizumab) with vascular markers to look at tumor associated blood vessels (immature, intermediate and mature: aSMA1 & CD31) and the rate of endothelial cell proliferation (Ki67/CD34). Our preliminary data demonstrates the expression of neo-vessels in the DHGP desmoplastic ring and in the peripheral tumor along the parenchyma tissue have lower vascularity with fewer branches that are supplying the tumor. The RHGP has similar vasculature to the adjacent normal tissue with a sinusoidal network of blood supply and a higher vascularity than DHGP. We are now correlating these findings with RNAseq expression data. This work will result in the identification of targets in the HGPs that will help stratify patients in terms of treatment. We currently have less treatment options for the RHGP patients and it would be important to utilize the data from this study to develop new treatment strategies for those patients. Citation Format: Anthoula Lazaris, Abdellatif Amri, Pablo Zoroquiain, Stephanie K. Petrillo, Rafif Mattar, Zu-Hua Gao, Peter Vermeulen, Peter Metrakos. Vascularization of colorectal cancer liver metastasis: correlation with growth patterns. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 1695.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→