MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Promoter polymorphisms of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex molecule, BRM, and esophageal adenocarcinoma outcome.

2013· article· en· W2604352850 on OpenAlexaff
Grzegorz Korpanty, Xin Qiu, Lawson Eng, Olusola Olusesan Faluyi, Dangxiao Cheng, Daniel J. Renouf, Jennifer J. Knox, Rebecca Wong, Gail Darling, Wei Xu, Lorin Dodbiba, Abul Kalam Azad, David Reisman, Sinéad Cuffe, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncologyInternal medicineHazard ratioProportional hazards modelCarcinogenesisChromatin remodelingAdenocarcinomaEsophageal cancerCancerSMARCA4Lung cancerSWI/SNFCancer researchConfidence intervalChromatinGeneBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4077 Background: Better understanding of the biology of esophageal cancer may help improve its treatment. The SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex is an important regulator of gene expression that has been linked to cancer development and outcome. Expression of Brahma (BRM), a critical catalytic subunit of SWI/SNF, is lost in a variety of solid tumors. Two novel BRM promoter polymorphisms (BRM -741 and BRM -1321) have been correlated with BRM loss and elevated cancer risk in upper aerodigestive cancers (Wang et al, Carcinogenesis, 2012) and more recently in lung cancer outcome (Cuffe et al, ESMO, 2012) by our research teams. Objectives: We evaluated BRM polymorphisms and their role in the survival of esophageal cancer patients. Methods: 223 histologically-confirmed esophageal adenocarcinoma patients of all stages were evaluated. The two BRM polymorphisms utilized Taqman genotyping. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for clinical prognostic variables and determined the association of polymorphisms with overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: Among our patients, 85% were male; the mean age was 63 years. 37% had stage IV advanced tumors. The median PFS was 1.03 years, while median OS was 1.82 years. After adjustment for known prognostic clinical variables, carrying homozygous variants of both BRM polymorphisms (double homozygotes) was associated with a worse outcome: aHR 1.84 (1.06-2.34, p=0.03) for OS and aHR 1.93 (1.10-2.48, p=0.02) for PFS. The direction and magnitude of associations were similar in subsets of patients by age, gender, smoking status, use of platinum agents, and disease stage. Non-significant trends in the same direction but of aHR magnitudes 1.34-1.54 were seen in the patients who carried one homozygous variant or who were double heterozygotes. Conclusions: We report the initial association of BRM polymorphisms with survival in esophageal cancer. We plan to explore additional relationships and validate these findings in other datasets.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207