MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incidental germline findings identified in a somatic genomic sequencing program for advanced cancer patients.

2016· article· en· W2654215783 on OpenAlexaff
Neda Stjepanovic, Philippe L. Bédard, Amit M. Oza, Blaise Clarke, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, Neesha C. Dhani, Natasha B. Leighl, Abha A. Gupta, Christine Elser, Jeanna McCuaig, Melyssa Aronson, Spring Holter, Kara Semotiuk, Lailah Ahmed, Lisa Wang, Tracy Stockley, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Lillian L. Siu, Raymond H. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermlineMUTYHMedicineCDKN2ACHEK2PALB2Genetic testingCancerGermline mutationBAP1Li–Fraumeni syndromeLynch syndromePTENColorectal cancerMLH1GeneticsOncologyInternal medicineGeneDNA mismatch repairBiologyMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1532 Background: Next generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor DNA is used to match precision cancer therapies. Germline DNA is often co-analyzed to aid in tumor variant interpretation, but may identify a previously unrecognized hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS). We reviewed germline variants and analyzed patients’ (pts) preferences in learning about HCSs discovered through an institutional somatic NGS program (NCT01505400). Methods: Advanced cancer pts with ECOG ≤ 1 were offered tumor-germline NGS using the Illumina TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel with 48 cancer genes designed specifically for somatic profiling. This also included the HCS genes: APC, ATM, CDH1, CDKN2A, KIT, MET, MLH1, PTEN, RB1, RET, SMAD4, SMARCB1, STK11, TP53, and VHL. All pts were provided with an optional IRB-approved consent for return of incidental germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in HCS genes with appropriate genetic counselling. Results: From Aug/2013 to Nov/2015, 1937 pts were enrolled. Median age was 59, 67% were women and 18% had prior genetic testing. 1817 pts (94%) consented to be informed of incidental germline results and 103 pts (5%) declined, with no statistically significant differences based on age, sex, race or prior genetic testing. Of 1538 pts (85%) who successfully underwent NGS testing of tumor and germline, eight were found to have pathogenic germline variants in HCS genes. Three pts were previously clinically identified: one with Familial adenomatous polyposis (APC) and two with Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS, TP53). Five pts had previously unrecognized germline pathogenic variants: three in TP53 (LFS), of which only one fulfilled Chompret’s criteria, and one in SMARCB1 (schwannomatosis) in the absence of syndrome features. One harbored a TP53variant at 16% allele frequency suggesting an acquired event in blood, rather than LFS. Conclusions: Interest in the return of germline results is high among pts with advanced cancers who undergo somatic profiling. Despite not conducting comprehensive analysis of all potential germline variants, a number of HCSs were still incidentally identified, supporting the involvement of genetic counselling in somatic profiling programs.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207