MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A biopsy-based genomic classifier to predict biochemical failure after definitive radiation without hormone therapy in a prospective cohort of intermediate risk prostate cancer.

2018· article· en· W2790064496 on OpenAlexaff
Melvin L.K. Chua, Jure Murgić, Ali Hosni, Adriana Salcedo, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Alejandro Berlín, Melania Pintile, Michael Fraser, Theodorus van der Kwast, Paul C. Boutros, Robert G. Bristow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchOccupational Cancer Research CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerBiochemical recurrenceInternal medicineHazard ratioOncologyRadiation therapyCohortProspective cohort studyProstateClinical endpointCancerAndrogen deprivation therapyProstatectomyHormonal therapyClinical trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

68 Background: Recently, NCCN adopted the Zumsteg-Spratt subclassification to define NCCN favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IR-PCa). NCCN unfavorable disease is recommended to receive combination androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy. To determine if genomics could help identify a subset who may safely avoid ADT, we evaluated the Decipher genomic classifier (GC) in IR-PCa treated with dose-escalated image-guided radiotherapy (DE-IGRT) alone. Methods: Our cohort comprised of 121 patients with NCCN favorable (N = 49, 40%) and unfavorable (N = 74, 60%) IR-PCa, who received 78 Gy without ADT. Diagnostic needle biopsies with the highest Gleason score (GS) and %tumor involvement were macrodissected for RNA extraction. GC scores were determined from the Decipher prostate cancer classifier assay (GenomeDx Biosciences, San Diego, CA). Primary clinical endpoint was biochemical relapse ([BCR], PSA nadir + 2ng/ml) post-DE-IGRT. We compared association with BCR against known clinicopathologic prognostic indices and the NCCN risk strata. Results: With a median follow up of 7.5y, 24 (19%) patients experienced BCR. Individual clinical indices did not predict BCR-free survival rate (BFS). NCCN risk strata was however associated with a small but significant difference in BFS (5-y 93%, favorable vs 88%, unfavourable, P = 0.046). GC scores stratified 85 (70%), 19 (16%), and 17 (14%) men into low, intermediate, and high risk of recurrence; 5-y BFS were 95%, 89%, and 59%, respectively (P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, a hazard ratio of 4.71 (95% CI 1.81-12.28, P = 0.0015) for BCR was observed for the GC high risk group compared to low/intermediate; NCCN risk strata and intraductal variant did not achieve significance. Conclusions: In IR-PCa men treated with DE-IGRT monotherapy, Decipher GC was an independent predictor of BCR. While most men in this our cohort were stratified as NCCN unfavorable IR-PCa, the majority were GC low risk with excellent outcomes from DE-IGRT alone. In contrast, a minority with GC high risk had suboptimal outcomes, and may benefit from ADT intensification.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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