MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic value of copy-number alterations of the Cohesin complex in intermediate-risk prostate cancer recurrence.

2016· article· en· W2589310309 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan So, Melvin L.K. Chua, Emilie Lalonde, Osman Mahamud, Alejandro Berlín, Alan Dal Pra, Michèle Orain, Hélène Hovington, Alain Bergeron, Yves Fradet, Bernard Têtu, Alice Meng, Junyan Zhang, Gaetano Zafarana, Julie Livingstone, Melania Pintilie, Theodorus van der Kwast, Michael Fraser, Paul C. Boutros, Robert G. Bristow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohesinProstate cancerBiochemical recurrenceMedicineProstateProstatectomyOncologyCancerCancer researchInternal medicineRadiation therapyBiologyChromosomeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

49 Background: The Cohesin complex plays a critical role in mitotic progression and post-replicative DNA damage repair. It serves to bring together sister chromatids both in metaphase and in homologous recombination repair following ionizing radiation. The complex has also been shown to be phosphorylated in the ATM/BRCA1 pathway. The expression of various proteins in the complex are dysregulated in many cancers: breast, prostate, etc. Interestingly, in breast cancer cell lines, Cohesin is required for MYC activation in response to estrogen. Our study sought to correlate copy number alterations in this pivotal complex with biochemical relapse in prostate cancer patients. Methods: Our cohort consists of 284 patients with D’ Amico-classified intermediate-risk prostate cancer, treated with image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT, N = 143) or radical prostatectomy (RadP, N = 141). Pre-treatment biopsies and prostatectomy samples were analyzed using the Affymetrix Oncoscan array. The Phoenix and AUA criteria was used to define biochemical relapse for RadP and IGRT patients respectively. Results: Copy number alterations of RAD21, SMC1B, and STAG1 were observed in 18% (n = 52), 6.3% (n = 18), and 12% (n = 35) of the cohort respectively. They were predominantly losses in SMC1B, but gains in RAD21 and STAG1. All three genes in the Cohesin complex were associated with increased risk of biochemical relapse: RAD21 on chromosome 8 (HR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.23, 3.02, Wald’s p = 0.004), SMC1B on chromosome 22 (HR = 3.37, 95% CI 1.91, 5.94, Wald’s p < 10-4), and STAG1 on chromosome 3 (HR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.04, 2.89, Wald’s p < 0.05). However, when controlled for percent genome alteration and pre-treatment serum PSA levels, only copy number loss of SMC1B was a significant predictor of biochemical relapse (HR = 2.95, 95% CI 1.62, 5.38, Wald’s p < 10-3). Conclusions: We identified a novel association of copy-number alterations in members of the Cohesin complex with biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy or image-guided radiotherapy. This points to the central role of Cohesin in cell-cycle and DNA damage pathways promoting prostate cancer progression.

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer→French-language works237,207→