MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Deciphering the genomic fingerprint of small cell prostate cancer with potential clinical utility.

2016· article· en· W2590722959 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Alshalalfa, Harrison Tsai, Zaid Haddad, Ashley E. Ross, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Elai Davicioni, Edward M. Schaeffer, Tamara L. Lotan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerProstateDECIPHERMedicineMetastasisAdenocarcinomaCarcinomaMicroarrayCancerCancer researchAndrogen deprivation therapyGene expression profilingAndrogen receptorOncologyGeneGene expressionPathologyInternal medicineBiologyBioinformaticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

303 Background: Small cell (SC) neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate has very poor prognosis and does not respond well to androgen receptor (AR)-targeted therapies. Neuroendocrine prostate carcinomas are increasingly recognized to show a spectrum of morphologic changes, and may not always be distinguishable from adenocarcinoma (adeno) based on morphology alone. Here we hypothesize that SC carcinoma harbor a unique gene expression signature that, when measured in primary prostatic adenocarcinoma, may help guide subsequent management. Methods: In total, 617 whole genome expression profiles were retrieved from the Decipher GRID providing gene expression data for 1.4 million markers. 17 morphologically-diagnosed SC carcinoma samples were compared to 32 Gleason 8-10 and 77 Gleason 6 RP adeno samples with no prior treatment and no evidence of metastasis, and this comparison was used to define SC Genomic Fingerprint (SCGFt) through adjusted median fold difference and Wilcoxon test. An additional 493 RP adeno from Mayo Clinic and John Hopkins Hospital were used to evaluate the utility of the SCGFt for predicting outcome. Results: Based on genomic prognostic tests calculated using the Decipher assay including Decipher, Penney and microarray-derived Cell Cycle Progression, SC carcinomas have very poor prognosis compared to high grade adeno. A total of 356 genes defined the SCGFt with 258 gene upregulated in SC and 98 down-regulated. PEG10, HELLS and RB1-loss program are the most overexpressed genes in SC and AR-related genes the most down-regulated. As expected, SC lacked ERG and alternative ETS expression and showed relatively low SPINK1 expression. A median summarization of the 356 genes in SCGFt was used to build a small cell genomic score (SCGS). Evaluating SCGS in RP adeno cohorts showed that patients with high SCGS are at higher risk of developing metastasis after RP in a natural history cohort or after adjuvant hormonal therapy based on Kaplan Meier analysis (both p< 0.001). When restricted to patients with high Decipher scores, SCGS provided independent prognostic information. Conclusions: SC carcinoma has a distinct genomic profile that may be useful for treatment management of patients with adenocarcinoma.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→