MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular profiling of patients (pts) with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC): Princess Margaret Cancer Centre experience.

2014· article· en· W2591034403 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne Chiu, Philippe L. Bédard, Michael H. A. Roehrl, Stefano Serra, Monika K. Kryzanowska, Jennifer J. Knox, Helen Mackay, David W. Hedley, Malcolm J. Moore, Geoffrey Liu, Neesha C. Dhani, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Emina Torlakovic, Tao Wang, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Dianne Chadwick, Tong Zhang, Celeste Yu, Eric Xueyu Chen, Shingo Sakashita

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKRASNeuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homologMedicinePTENHRASColorectal cancerOncologyInternal medicineConcordanceCancerAmpliconCancer researchGeneGeneticsBiologyPolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

459 Background: The prevalence of somatic mutations other than KRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF in CRC has not been well described. This study reports molecular profiling of pts with advanced CRC in clinical practice. Methods: Pts with advanced CRC are enrolled in an ongoing institution-wide screening program. Molecular profiling is performed on FFPE archival tissues using a customized Sequenom panel (23 genes, 279 mutations) or the Illumina MiSeq TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel (48 genes, 212 amplicons, ≥ 500x coverage) in our CLIA-certified laboratory. PTEN negative tumor is defined by IHC with H score <1. Demographic and clinical data are collected. Data was analyzed by chi-square test. Results: From March 2012 to August 2013, 132 pts were enrolled. One or more mutations were found in 50% (58/117) and 93%(14/15) of pts using Sequenom and MiSeq platforms respectively. Mutation rate was 40% for KRAS, 9% for PIK3CA, 2% for BRAF, 4% for NRAS, and 1% for each of CTNNB1, ERBB2, FGFR3, and EGFR. Mutations outside of codons 12/13 were found in 8% (4/53) of tumors with KRAS mutations. MiSeq showed additional mutations including ERBB4 (1/15), SMAD4 (1/15), FRXW7 (1/5), APC (5/15), and TP53 (12/15) in CRC. Co-mutation with KRAS was found in 58% (7/12) of pts with PIK3CA mutation and 80% (4/5) of pts with APC mutation. PTEN negative tumor was present in 20% (11/55) of pts. Presence of any mutation was significantly more common for pts with right-sided CRC (73%) compared to those with left-sided CRC (47%) and rectal CRC (38%) (p < 0.01). There was a trend toward increased proportion of KRAS mutation in right-sided CRC (p=0.06). There was no difference in age, ethnicity, gender, smoking status, stage at presentation, pathology grade, and response to first-line chemotherapy between right and left-sided CRC. Conclusions: Somatic alterations are common in advanced CRC. Targeted next-generation DNA sequencing identifies additional clinically relevant alterations than multiplex genotyping. Differences in the mutation profile of right and left-sided CRC tumors should be further investigated. Updated results will be presented at the meeting.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207