MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The diverse genomic landscape of low−risk prostate cancer.

2018· article· en· W2603826687 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew R. Cooperberg, Nicholas Erho, June M. Chan, Felix Y. Feng, Shuang G. Zhao, Jeff Simko, Janet E. Cowan, Jonathan Lehrer, Nick Fishbane, Mohammed Alshalalfa, Tyler Kolisnik, Jijumon Chelliserry, Jennifer Margrave, Maria Aranes, Marguerite du Plessis, Christine Buerki, Imelda Tenggara, Elai Davicioni, Peter R. Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineProstateOncologyProstate biopsyQuartileInternal medicinePTENCancerPopulationPathologyConfidence intervalBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

74 Background: Among men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer, we have previously documented heterogeneity in terms of clinical characteristics and genomic risk scores. In this study, we aimed to study the underlying tumor biology of this patient population, by interrogating patterns of gene expression among men with clinically low-risk tumors. Methods: Prostate biopsies from 427 patients considered potentially suitable for active surveillance underwent central pathology review and genome-wide expression profiling. These cases were compared to 1290 higher-risk biopsy cases with diverse clinical features from a prospective genomic registry. Average genomic risk (AGR) was determined from 18 published prognostic signatures, and MSigDB Hallmark gene sets were analyzed using bootstrapped clustering methods. These sets were examined in relation to clinical variables and pathologic and biochemical outcomes using multivariable regression analysis. Results: 408 (96%) of biopsies passed RNA quality control. Based on average genomic risk quartiles defined by the high-risk multicenter cases, the UCSF low-risk patients were distributed across the quartiles as 219 (54%), 107 (26%), 61 (15%), and 21 (5%). Unsupervised clustering analysis of the Hallmark gene set scores revealed 3 clusters, which were enriched for the previously described PAM50 luminal A, luminal B and basal subtypes. These three clusters did not associate with existing clinical or known genomic risk characteristics, suggesting a novel and independent classification for low-risk prostate cancer. AGR was associated with both pathological (OR: 1.3, p < 0.001) and biochemical outcomes (OR: 1.5, p = 0.001 ) but the clusters were not. Conclusions: Prostate cancers that are largely homogeneously low-risk by traditional characteristics demonstrate substantial diversity at the level of genomic expression. Molecular sub-stratification of low-risk prostate cancer may facilitate better decision-making with respect to both timing and intensity of cancer surveillance and treatment.

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 score0.005

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.501
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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