MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2564057978 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2015-956

Abstract 956: The evolutionary history of lethal metastatic prostate cancer

2015· article· en· W2564057978 on OpenAlexaff
Gunes Gundem, Peter Van Loo, Bárbara Kremeyer, Ludmil B. Alexandrov, José M. C. Tubío, Elli Papaemmanuil, Daniel S. Brewer, Heini Kallio, Gunilla Högnäs, Matti Annala, Kati Kivinummi, Victoria Goody, Calli Latimer, Sarah O’Meara, Kevin J. Dawson, William B. Isaacs, Michael R. Emmert‐Buck, Matti Nykter, Christopher S. Foster, Zsofia Kote‐Jarai, Douglas F. Easton, Hayley C. Whitaker, David E. Neal, Colin S. Cooper, Rosalind A. Eeles, Tapio Visakorpi, Peter J. Campbell, Ultan McDermott, David C. Wedge, G. Steven Bova

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMetastasisCancerChromoplexyBiologyCancer researchProstateContext (archaeology)Metastasis Suppressor GeneMalignancyAndrogen receptorMedicineGeneticsPCA3

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cancers emerge from an on-going Darwinian evolutionary process, often leading to multiple competing subclones within a single primary tumour. This evolutionary process culminates in the formation of metastases, which is the cause of 90% of cancer-related deaths. However, despite its clinical importance, little is known about the principles governing the dissemination of cancer cells to distant organs. Although the hypothesis that each metastasis originates from a single tumour cell is generally supported, recent studies using mouse models of cancer demonstrated the existence of polyclonal seeding from and inter-clonal cooperation between multiple subclones. In this study, we sought definitive evidence for the existence of polyclonal seeding in human malignancy and to establish the clonal relationship among different metastases in the context of androgen-deprived metastatic prostate cancer. Using whole genome sequencing, we characterised multiple metastases arising from prostate tumours in ten patients. Integrated analyses of subclonal architecture revealed the patterns of metastatic spread in unprecedented detail. Metastasis-to-metastasis spread was found to be common, either through de novo monoclonal seeding of daughter metastases or, in five cases, through the transfer of multiple tumour clones between metastatic sites. Lesions affecting tumour suppressor genes usually occur as single events, whereas mutations in genes involved in androgen receptor signalling commonly involve multiple, convergent events in different metastases. Our results elucidate in detail the complex patterns of metastatic spread and further our understanding of the development of resistance to androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer. Citation Format: Gunes Gundem, Peter Van Loo, Barbara Kremeyer, Ludmil B. Alexandrov, Jose M.C. Tubio, Elli Papaemmanuil, Daniel S. Brewer, Heini Kallio, Gunilla Högnäs, Matti Annala, Kati Kivinummi, Victoria Goody, Calli Latimer, Sarah O'Meara, Kevin J. Dawson, William Isaacs, Michael R. Emmert-Buck, Matti Nykter, Christopher Foster, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Douglas Easton, Hayley C. Whitaker, David E. Neal, Colin S. Cooper, Rosalind A. Eeles, Tapio Visakorpi, Peter J. Campbell, Ultan McDermott, David C. Wedge, G. S. Bova. The evolutionary history of lethal metastatic 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 956. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-956

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.221 · 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→