The Angiosarcoma Project: enabling genomic and clinical discoveries in a rare cancer through patient-partnered research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite collectively accounting for 25% of tumors in U.S. adults, rare cancers have significant unmet clinical needs as they are difficult to study due to low incidence and geographically dispersed patient populations. We sought to assess whether a patient-partnered research approach using online engagement can overcome these challenges and accelerate scientific discovery in rare cancers, focusing on angiosarcoma (AS), an exceedingly rare sarcoma with a dismal prognosis and an annual U.S. incidence of 300 cases. Here, we describe the development of the Angiosarcoma Project (ASCproject), an initiative enabling patients across the U.S. and Canada to remotely share their clinical information and biospecimens for research. The project generates and publicly releases clinically annotated genomic data on tumor and germline specimens on an ongoing basis. Over 18 months, 338 AS patients registered for the ASCproject, comprising a significant fraction of all patients. Whole exome sequencing of 47 AS tumors revealed several recurrently mutated genes, including KDR , TP53 , and PIK3CA . Activating mutations in PIK3CA were observed nearly exclusively in primary breast AS, suggesting a therapeutic rationale in these patients. AS of the head, neck, face, and scalp (HNFS) was associated with high tumor mutation burden and a dominant mutational signature of UV light exposure, suggesting that UV damage may be a causative factor in HNFS AS and that this AS subset might be amenable to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Medical record review revealed two patients with HNFS AS received off-label treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy and experienced exceptional responses, highlighting immune checkpoint inhibition as a therapeutic avenue for HNFS AS. This patient-partnered approach has catalyzed an opportunity to discover the etiology and potential therapies for AS patients. Collectively, this proof of concept study demonstrates that empowering patients to directly participate in research can overcome barriers in rare diseases and enable biological and clinical discoveries.
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 | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".