MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validation of a genomic risk classifier to predict metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with positive lymph nodes.

2018· article· en· W2789446608 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce J. Trock, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Frank Claessens, John W. Davis, Zaid Haddad, Kasra Yousefi, Elai Davicioni, Ashley E. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerOncologyInternal medicineNomogramMetastasisAdjuvantAdjuvant therapyLogistic regressionCohortLymph nodeProportional hazards modelCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

125 Background: Men with lymph node involvement (LNI) at prostatectomy (RP) are at high risk of dying from prostate cancer. However, survival following RP is highly variable, with some men apparently cured. Nomograms developed for men with LNI have been based on series where all or the vast majority of men received adjuvant treatment. Because administration of adjuvant treatment is not universal, even for LNI, we evaluated whether the Decipher genomic classifier (GC) can improve upon clinical models to predict metastasis within 5 years (MET5) and prostate cancer specific mortality within 10 years (PCSM10) in a cohort of LNI patients, the majority of whom did not receive adjuvant treatment. Methods: 141 patients from 4 institutions (Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Leuven, MD Anderson) had LNI at RP, had adequate tissue and clinical data for analysis of MET5, and 86 were analyzed for PCSM10. 43% of men received adjuvant therapy. RP tumor tissue was analyzed by Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST GeneChip; the GC was calculated based on 22 genes in the previously trained and validated algorithm. Logistic regression evaluated whether the GC, dichotomized as high risk (GC score > 0.6) vs low-intermediate risk (≤0.6), improved prediction of MET5 and PCSM10 beyond that achieved with established clinical prognostic factors. Results: 62 men (43%) developed MET5, and 35 (41%) developed PCSM10. For both MET5 and PCSM10 CAPRA-S, number of positive lymph nodes, and age were significant; adjuvant therapy was not significant. GC was a significant independent strong prognostic factor when added to the clinical model for prediction of MET5, odds ratio = 4.04 (95% CI: 1.48, 11.02), p = 0.006, and prediction of PCSM10, odds ratio = 6.71 (95% CI: 2.01, 22.38), p = 0.002. Addition of GC to the clinical model improved the AUC from 0.77 to 0.79 for MET5, and from 0.65 to 0.74 for PCSM10. Conclusions: The Decipher GC significantly improves upon clinical variables to predict metastasis and prostate cancer specific mortality in men at high risk due to LNI. This is the first study to show a genomic classifier predicts outcomes in men with LNI; validation is needed to determine if Decipher can improve treatment decisions in men with LNI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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