MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Genomic biomarkers to predict outcome in Gleason Score 9-10 disease.

2019· article· en· W2922411602 on OpenAlexaff
Amar U. Kishan, Tahmineh Romero, David Elashoff, Tristan Grogan, Matthew B. Rettig, Robert E. Reiter, Phuoc T. Tran, Paul L. Nguyen, Nicholas G. Nickols, Elai Davicioni, Daniel E. Spratt, Felix Y. Feng, Joanne B. Weidhaas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstatectomyOncologyLogistic regressionInternal medicineMicroarrayGene expression profilingGeneCancerGene expressionBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

44 Background: Gleason score (GS) 9-10 prostate cancer (PCa) has classically been considered the most aggressive form of clinically localized disease. However, outcomes remain heterogeneous. Whether specific biomarkers may help guide prognostication within GS 9-10 disease remains unknown. Methods: Microarray-derived gene expression data were obtained from six retrospective radical prostatectomy cohorts (n=1076) and two prospective cohorts with data from the Decipher GRID (n=7000). A total of 957 patients had GS 9-10 disease. Clinical outcomes data (i.e., distant metastasis [DM] and prostate cancer-specific mortality [PCSM]) were available for 1077 patients (201 with GS 9-10 disease). We filtered for genes with high expression levels and differential expression between GS 9-10 and GS ≤8 (via Wilcoxon test with adjustment for false discovery rate [FDR]), and then used using weighted gene co-expression network analysis [WGCNA] to identify distinct modules. Genes with both a low p-value and a high connectivity within each module were included as potential predictors in logistic regression models constructed using elastic net regularization. We also chose genes within the GS 9-10 cohort with q-value <0.01 and <0.3 after FDR correction for outcomes of DM and PCSM, respectively. We used the cross-validated AUC for quantifying the discrimination of each gene set. Results: We identified a set of 12 genes with an AUC of 0.81 for discriminating GS 9-10 vs. GS ≤8. A separate set of 7 genes had an AUC of 0.83 for predicting DM within GS 9-10 patients, compared with an AUC of 0.68 within GS ≤8 patients. A third set of 13 genes had an AUC of 0.93 for predicting PCSM within GS 9-10 patients, but an AUC of only 0.57 for predicting PCSM within GS ≤8. Conclusions: These data suggest that a genomic biomarker signature can strongly discriminate GS 9-10 from GS ≤8. Separate gene sets can also predict DM and PCSM within GS 9-10 patients with high fidelity, but are not as predictive of these outcomes within GS ≤8 patients. These data support the hypothesis that GS 9-10 disease is a biologically distinct yet heterogeneous entity, and biomarker discovery efforts to better guide upfront treatment intensification in this subset are feasible and warranted. (NCT02609269).

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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