MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Genomic alterations to refine prognostication of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

2018· article· en· W2792325737 on OpenAlexaff
Dominick Bossé, Wanling Xie, Aly‐Khan A. Lalani, Guillermo de Velasco, Martin H. Voss, Nizar M. Tannir, Pheroze Tamboli, Leonard J. Appleman, W. Kimryn Rathmell, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Guru Sonpavde, Sabina Signoretti, A. Ari Hakimi, Toni K. Choueiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBAP1MedicineClear cell renal cell carcinomaRenal cell carcinomaInternal medicineOncologyProportional hazards modelCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

626 Background: The IMDC risk score is a valid and simple tool to prognosticate patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Some non-VHL common genomic alterations may be associated with outcomes. We therefore assessed the prognostic value of most commonly mutated genes in mRCC beside VHL overall, and within IMDC risk groups. Methods: We identified patients treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (n = 65) or part of TCGA (n = 33) who had genomic data available and were treated with first line vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Information on genomic alterations (GA) focused on PBRM1, BAP1, SETD2, KDM5C and TP53 was extracted. Cox regression was performed to assess the association of each GA with overall survival (OS), adjusting for IMDC risk groups and age. Results: Overall, 98 pts were identified. 96/98 pts had clear-cell histology. Pts distribution by IMDC risk groups was: 7% good, 58% intermediate, 27% poor and 8% unknown. Mutation rates were 27% PBRM1, 17% BAP1, 29% SETD2, 9% KDM5C and 8% TP53. In multivariable models, there was an association between GA and worse OS for BAP1 and BAP1 or TP53 combined (Table). When stratified by IMDC risk groups, GA in BAP1 or TP53 was associated with shorter median OS in poor risk pts [12.1 mo (95%CI 8.3- 24.0) v. 27.6 mo (95%CI 18.9- 53.4), aHR 4.64 (95%CI 1.32-16.4), p = 0.017] and a trend toward worse median OS in intermediate risk pts [20.5 mo (95%CI 7.4-54.6) v. 36.3 mo (95%CI 21.1, NR), aHR 2.11 (95%CI 0.94-4.74)] compared to pts without GA in BAP1 or TP53. Too few death events were observed in good risk pts to assess the prognostic value of GA in BAP1 or TP53. Conclusions: GA in BAP1 or TP53 are prognostic in mRCC and further discriminate pts with distinct outcomes within IMDC risk groups. Validation in larger dataset is ongoing. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→