Further Investigation of the Role of <i>ACYP2</i> and <i>WFS1</i> Pharmacogenomic Variants in the Development of Cisplatin-Induced Ototoxicity in Testicular Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: Adverse drug reactions such as ototoxicity, which occurs in approximately one-fifth of adult patients who receive cisplatin treatment, can incur large socioeconomic burdens on patients with testicular cancer who develop this cancer during early adulthood. Recent genome-wide association studies have identified genetic variants in ACYP2 and WFS1 that are associated with cisplatin-induced ototoxicity. We sought to explore the role of these genetic susceptibility factors to cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in patients with testicular cancer. Experimental Design: Extensive clinical and demographic data were collected for 229 patients with testicular cancer treated with cisplatin. Patients were genotyped for two variants, ACYP2 rs1872328 and WFS1 rs62283056, that have previously been associated with hearing loss in cisplatin-treated patients. Analyses were performed to investigate the association of these variants with ototoxicity in this cohort of adult patients with testicular cancer. Results: Pharmacogenomic analyses revealed that ACYP2 rs1872328 was significantly associated with cisplatin-induced ototoxicity [P = 2.83 × 10−3, OR (95% CI):14.7 (2.6–84.2)]. WFS1 rs62283056 was not significantly associated with ototoxicity caused by cisplatin (P = 0.39); however, this variant was associated with hearing loss attributable to any cause [P = 5.67 × 10−3, OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.4–7.7)]. Conclusions: This study has provided the first evidence for the role of ACYP2 rs1872328 in cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in patients with testicular cancer. These results support the use of this information to guide the development of strategies to prevent cisplatin-induced ototoxicity across cancers. Further, this study has highlighted the importance of phenotypic differences in replication studies and has provided further evidence for the role of WFS1 rs62283056 in susceptibility to hearing loss, which may be worsened by cisplatin treatment. Clin Cancer Res; 24(8); 1866–71. ©2018 AACR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".