Evolutionary dynamics of residual disease in human glioblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is the most common and aggressive adult brain malignancy against which conventional surgery and chemoradiation provide limited benefit. Even when a good treatment response is obtained, recurrence inevitably occurs either locally (∼80%) or distally (∼20%), driven by cancer clones that are often genomically distinct from those in the primary tumour. Glioblastoma cells display a characteristic infiltrative phenotype, invading the surrounding tissue and often spreading across the whole brain. Cancer cells responsible for relapse can reside in two compartments of residual disease that are left behind after treatment: the infiltrated normal brain parenchyma and the sub-ventricular zone. However, these two sources of residual disease in glioblastoma are understudied because of the difficulty in sampling these regions during surgery. PATIENT AND METHODS: Here, we present the results of whole-exome sequencing of 69 multi-region samples collected using fluorescence-guided resection from 11 patients, including the infiltrating tumour margin and the sub-ventricular zone for each patient, as well as matched blood. We used a phylogenomic approach to dissect the spatio-temporal evolution of each tumour and unveil the relation between residual disease and the main tumour mass. We also analysed two patients with paired primary-recurrence samples with matched residual disease. RESULTS: Our results suggest that infiltrative subclones can arise early during tumour growth in a subset of patients. After treatment, the infiltrative subclones may seed the growth of a recurrent tumour, thus representing the 'missing link' between the primary tumour and recurrent disease. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with recognised clinical phenotypic behaviour and suggest that more specific therapeutic targeting of cells in the infiltrated brain parenchyma may improve patient's outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".