MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract A190: Management of germline findings revealed throughout the course of tumor-normal whole genome sequencing in oncology

2018· article· en· W2786006104 on OpenAlexaff
Howard J. Lim, Kasmintan A. Schrader, Sean Young, Jessica Nelson, Alexandra Fok, Erin Pleasance, Martin Jones, Yaoqing Shen, Linlea Armstrong, Alice Virani, Shahrad R. Rassekh, Rebecca Deyell, Stephen Yip, Robyn Roscoe, Aly Karsan, Marco A. Marra, Janessa Laskin

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Children's HospitalBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermlineGenetic counselingContext (archaeology)CancerMedicinePenetranceOncologyInternal medicineBioinformaticsGeneticsGeneBiologyPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) project at the BC Cancer Agency utilizes tumor-normal whole genome sequencing (WGS) to understand key driver pathways and guide personalized treatment decisions. Analysis of the germline data can reveal variants; these may be presumed pathogenic, presumed benign, or of unknown significance (VUS). We have developed a process for evaluating and returning presumed pathogenic variants in known cancer susceptibility genes to patients, for counseling and validation in a clinical-accredited laboratory. Methods: Patients receive germline cancer-related information as part of the consent process for participation in the POG program. A subcommittee comprising medical geneticists, bioinformaticians, pathologists, oncologists, and an ethicist review the germline results. Any variants suspicious of being an artifact undergo a technical validation step. Presumed pathogenic findings of known cancer susceptibility genes are returned to the patient by their treating oncologist and patients are referred to the Hereditary Cancer Program (HCP), for genetic counseling and clinical confirmation. Results: From June 2012-January 2017, 466 patients have consented to the project. To date, 39 cases (8.4%) had at least one variant that was deemed pathogenic, and 86 cases had at least one VUS in a known cancer susceptibility gene. 11 out of 23 cases (47.8%) with high-penetrance mutations were already known to HCP. All VUS were reviewed by the subcommittee, taking into consideration the VUS and clinical context. 8 of the subjects with pathogenic results and 3 with VUS were known to HCP before POG data were generated. A VUS in 7 cases (1.5%) was returned after review. Conclusions: The number of pathogenic variants in known cancer susceptibility genes is consistent with published oncology results. We created a process to manage clinically relevant germline findings discovered during the course of genomic research to ensure appropriate care for patients. Genetic counseling within HCP and validation of variants in the clinically accredited Cancer Genetics Laboratory enables seamless return of research-generated clinically relevant germline results to affected subjects. Citation Format: Howard J. Lim, Kasmintan A. Schrader, Sean Young, Jessica M T Nelson, Alexandra Fok, Erin Pleasance, Martin Jones, Yaoqing Shen, Linlea Armstrong, Alice Virani, Shahrad Rassekh, Rebecca Deyell, Stephen Yip, Robyn Roscoe, Aly Karsan, Marco Marra, Janessa J. Laskin. Management of germline findings revealed throughout the course of tumor-normal whole genome sequencing in oncology [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A190.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.342
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207