MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607785336 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0502

Association Between <i>SLC16A5</i> Genetic Variation and Cisplatin-Induced Ototoxic Effects in Adult Patients With Testicular Cancer

2017· article· en· W2607785336 on OpenAlexaffabout
Britt I. Drögemöller, Jose Gerard Monzon, Amit P. Bhavsar, Adrienne E. Borrie, Beth Brooks, Galen E.B. Wright, Geoffrey Liu, Daniel J. Renouf, Christian Kollmannsberger, Philippe L. Bédard, Folefac Aminkeng, Ursula Amstutz, Claudette Hildebrand, Erandika P. Gunaretnam, Carol Critchley, Zhuo Chen, Liam R. Brunham, Michael R. Hayden, Colin J.D. Ross, Karen A. Gelmon, Bruce Carleton

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoBC Children's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTesticular cancerInterquartile rangeCisplatinPharmacogenomicsInternal medicineOncologyOdds ratioOtotoxicityChemotherapyCancerPharmacogeneticsBioinformaticsGenotypePharmacologyGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Cisplatin-induced ototoxic effects are an important complication that affects testicular cancer survivors as a consequence of treatment. The identification of genetic variants associated with this adverse drug reaction will further our mechanistic understanding of its development and potentially lead to strategies to prevent ototoxic effects. OBJECTIVE: To identify the genetic variants associated with cisplatin-induced ototoxic effects in adult testicular cancer patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective study was performed by the Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety using patients recruited from 5 adult oncology treatment centers across Canada. Male patients who were 17 years or older, diagnosed with germ cell testicular cancer, and previously treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy were recruited from July 2009 to April 2013 using active surveillance methodology. Cisplatin-induced ototoxic effects were independently diagnosed by 2 audiologists. Patients were genotyped for 7907 variants using a custom pharmacogenomic array. Logistic regression was used to identify genetic variants that were significantly associated with ototoxic effects. The validity of these findings was confirmed through independent replication and cell-based functional assays. EXPOSURES: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cisplatin-induced ototoxic effects. RESULTS: After exclusions, 188 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 31 [24-39] years) were enrolled in this study to form the discovery and replication cohorts. Association and fine-mapping analyses identified a protein-coding variant, rs4788863 in SLC16A5, that was associated with protection against cisplatin-induced ototoxic effects in 2 independent cohorts (combined cohort: odds ratio, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.02-0.22; P = 2.17 × 10-7). Functional validation of this transporter gene revealed that in vitro SLC16A5-silencing altered cellular responses to cisplatin treatment, supporting a role for SLC16A5 in the development of cisplatin-induced ototoxic effects. These results were further supported by the literature, which provided confirmatory evidence for the role that SLC16A5 plays in hearing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study has identified a novel association between protein-coding variation in SLC16A5 and cisplatin-induced ototoxic effects. These findings have provided insight into the molecular mechanisms of this adverse drug reaction in adult patients with germ cell testicular cancer. Given that previous studies have shown that cimetidine, an SLC16A5-inhibitor, prevents murine cisplatin-induced ototoxic effects, the findings from this study have important implications for otoprotectant strategies in humans.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations51
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207