MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype on neurocognitive function (NCF) in patients with brain metastasis (BM): An analysis of NRG Oncology’s RTOG 0614.

2018· article· en· W2889984783 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey S. Wefel, Snehal Deshmukh, Paul D. Brown, David R. Grosshans, Erik P. Sulman, Jane H. Cerhan, Minesh P. Mehta, Deepak Khuntia, Wenyin Shi, Mark V. Mishra, John H. Suh, Nadia N. Laack, Yuhchyau Chen, Amarinthia Curtis, Joanna Laba, Rex B. Mowat, Anu Thakrar, Stephanie L. Pugh, Deborah Watkins Bruner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineApolipoprotein EInternal medicineMemantineOncologyRadiation therapyHazard ratioConfidence intervalDiseaseDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2065 Background: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is a common treatment for BM and is associated with decline in NCF. The APOE e4 allele is associated with increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, and NCF decline after chemotherapy for non-CNS cancer, treatment for primary brain tumor, and in irradiated mouse models. APOE carrier status has not been evaluated as a risk factor for impaired NCF in patients with BM before and after WBRT. Methods: RTOG 0614 treated adult patients with BM with 37.5 Gy of WBRT (+/- memantine), performed NCF testing (HVLT-R, TMT, COWA) at baseline, 8, 16, 24, and 52 weeks, and included an optional blood draw for APOE analysis. APOE alleles were evaluated by real-time PCR based SNP analysis using TaqMan genotyping. NCF test results were compared at baseline and over time with mixed effects models adjusted for baseline score, treatment arm, time, and interaction between time and APOE carrier status. A cause-specific Cox model for time to NCF failure was performed to assess the effects of treatment arm (memantine versus placebo) and APOE carrier status (e4 versus no e4). Results: APOE results were available for 45% (n = 227/508) of patients. No pretreatment differences were detected between patients with APOE available versus not available. APOE e4 carrier status was evenly distributed between treatment arms (e4 positive = 29.5%). NCF test results did not differ by APOE e4 carrier status at baseline, but e4 carriers were less often white and had started WBRT at study entry more often. Mixed effects modeling showed that patients without an APOE e4 allele had better memory after WBRT compared to patients with an APOE e4 allele (HVLT-R Total Recall [estimate = 2.44, p = 0.026], Delayed Recognition [estimate = 1.15, p = 0.024]). For time to NCF failure, treatment arm was significant (HR = 0.715, 95% CI: 0.513-0.998, p = 0.0487) in favor of memantine; however, APOE e4 status was not (HR = 0.865, 95% CI: 0.606-1.233, p = 0.422). Conclusions: Patients with an APOE e4 allele exhibited worse memory function after treatment with WBRT (+/- memantine), but no difference in time to NCF failure. APOE carrier status was not associated with NCF in patients with BM prior to WBRT. Clinical trial information: NCT00566852.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207