MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Multivariate assessment of SPARC expression in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to identify subgroups that are sensitive to adjuvant gemcitabine.

2017· article· en· W2602145672 on OpenAlexaff
Steve E. Kalloger, Joanna M. Karasinska, Hui‐Li Wong, Daniel J. Renouf, David F. Schaeffer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British ColumbiaPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineOncologyCohortInternal medicineBiomarkerStromal cellTissue microarrayLymphovascular invasionMultivariate analysisImmunohistochemistryPancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaPathologyPancreatic cancerCancerMetastasisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

297 Background: Secreted Protein, Acid, Cysteine-Rich (SPARC) has recently been postulated as a therapeutic target in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The clinical trial findings investigating SPARC expression and nab-paclitaxel sensitivity have been discordant. This study aims to develop an integrated component based approach to the quantification of SPARC in PDAC to identify discrete predictive subgroups in a cohort of resected patients treated with an gemcitabine (GEM) or subjected to post-surgical observation. Methods: Immunohistochemical quantification of SPARC was performed on the epithelial and stromal compartments of resected PDAC on 219 patient samples on a tissue-microarray. The staining was assessed by the generation of H-Scores. The resultant scores were subjected to unsupervised hierarchical clustering. The maximum number of clusters was determined through an a priori decision that no cluster could be composed of less than 15% of the cohort. Univariable disease specific survival (DSS) analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method to examine the cluster specific survival profiles with regard to gemcitabine sensitivity. Results: Mean age was 67 [38-88] with 56% being male. Most of the cohort had advanced disease with pT3 = 95% and pN1 = 72%. Lymphovascular and perinueural invasion were found in 58% and 93% of the cohort respectively. Clusters ranging in size from 35 to 76 cases were derived and represented the four-biomarker combinations of Low/Low, Low/High, High/High, and High/Low for the epithelial and stromal components respectively. None of the clinico-pathologic variables were significantly enriched in the clusters. Assessment of the predictive ability of the 4 clusters demonstrated that only one cluster (High/High) representing 76 (35%) patients in this cohort was sensitive to adjuvant GEM (p = 0.0067). Conclusions: This study shows that there is enhanced value in a combinatorial approach to the examination of SPARC in the stromal and epithelial components of PDAC where we have discovered that co-expression in both the epithelial and stromal components is significantly associated with sensitivity to adjuvant GEM.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→