MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2599386056 · doi:10.1200/jco.2017.35.6_suppl.4

Evaluation of the Decipher prostate cancer classifier to predict metastasis and disease-specific mortality from genomic analysis of diagnostic prostate needle biopsy specimens.

2017· article· en· W2599386056 on OpenAlexaff
Paul L. Nguyen, Zaid Haddad, Lucia L.C. Lam, Kaye Ong, Christine Buerki, Samineh Deheshi, Kasra Yousefi, Elai Davicioni, Jeffrey J. Tosoian, Tamara L. Lotan, Felix Y. Feng, Bruce J. Trock, Ashley E. Ross, Eric A. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerDECIPHEROncologyProstateMetastasisBiopsyInternal medicineProstatectomyProstate biopsyCancerBiochemical recurrencePathologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4 Background: Accurate risk stratification after diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) is key to optimal treatment decision-making. Decipher RP is an extensively validated genomic classifier used to determine biological potential for metastasis. Here, in a multi-institutional cohort, we aimed to evaluate its ability to predict metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality from analysis of PCa needle biopsy tumor tissue specimens. Methods: We identified 175 patients treated with either first-line RP or first-line radiation therapy (RT) + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with available genomic expression profiles generated from diagnostic biopsy specimens obtained from three tertiary referral centers: Cleveland Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Johns Hopkins. The core with the highest grade was sampled and Decipher was calculated based on a locked random forest model. Cox univariable and multivariable (MVA) proportional hazards model and survival c-index were used to evaluate the performance of Decipher. Results: Overall, 85% of patients had NCCN intermediate and high-risk disease. Of the 175 patients, 43% and 57% were treated with first-line RP and RT+ADT, respectively. With a median follow-up of 6 years, 32 patients developed metastases and 11 of these patients died of PCa. For prediction of metastasis 5 years post biopsy, Decipher had a c-index of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.84) compared to 0.66 (95% CI 0.53-0.77) for CAPRA and 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.77) for NCCN risk group. On MVA, when modeled with CAPRA, Bx Decipher remained a significant predictor of metastasis (Decipher Bx hazard ratio [HR] 1.33 per 10% increase in score, 95% CI 1.06–1.69, P = 0.01). Decipher Bx was also a significant predictor of PCSM (Decipher Bx HR 1.57 per 10%, 95% CI 1.07–2.40, P = 0.02) Conclusions: Decipher Bx was able to predict metastasis and PCSM from diagnostic biopsy specimens in a cohort of primarily intermediate and high-risk men regardless of first line treatment. This additional genomic information provides important risk stratification to help guide therapy for men with intermediate- and high-risk disease.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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