MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract CN06-01: Lineage plasticity and the neuroendocrine phenotype as a resistance mechanism in prostate cancer

2019· article· en· W2992330814 on OpenAlexaff
Himisha Beltran, Sheng‐Yu Ku, Vincenza Conteduca, Alessandro Romanel, Loredana Puca, Michael Sigouros, Juan Miguel Mosquera, Scott T. Tagawa, Andrea Sboner, Olivier Elemento, David W. Goodrich, David S. Rickman, Amina Zoubeidi, Francesca Demichelis

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerCancer researchProstateExome sequencingAdenocarcinomaSomatic evolution in cancerDNA methylationBiologyCancerEpigenomicsCopy number analysisChromoplexyLiquid biopsyMedicinePhenotypeCopy-number variationPCA3GeneticsGeneGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Loss of androgen receptor (AR) signaling dependence occurs in approximately 15-20% of treatment resistant prostate cancers, and this may manifest clinically as transformation from a prostate adenocarcinoma histology to a castration resistant neuroendocrine prostate cancer (CRPC-NE). The diagnosis of CRPC-NE currently relies on a metastatic tumor biopsy, which is invasive for patients and often challenging to diagnose due to tumor heterogeneity. By studying whole exome sequencing and whole genome bisulfite sequencing of metastatic tumor biopsies and matched cell free DNA (cfDNA), we identified distinct genomic and epigenomic features of CRPC-NE and patterns of tumor evolution that occur during clinical progression and treatment resistance. Loss of RB1 and TP53 are enriched in CRPC-NE compared with castration resistant prostate adenocarcinoma, as are significant changes in DNA methylation, which are detectable by cfDNA. There was significantly higher concordance between cfDNA and biopsy tissue genomic alterations in CRPC-NE patients compared to castration resistant adenocarcinoma, supporting greater intra-individual genomic consistency across metastases. cfDNA and serial tumor biopsies allowed for the tracking of dynamic clonal and subclonal tumor cell populations as patients progressed and identified CRPC-NE alterations sometimes prior to the development of clinical features. CRPC-NE appears to arise clonally from a prostate adenocarcinoma precursor likely through a dynamic process of clonal selection and trans-differentiation that occurs during resistance to AR-directed therapies. In addition to loss of AR expression and canonical AR signaling, we identified a dysregulation of key pathways in CRPC-NE including loss of Notch signaling, reactivation of developmental programs, and gain of neuronal/neuroendocrine programs including critical lineage determining transcription factors (LDTFs) such as ASCL1, MYCN, BRN2, pointing to novel biomarkers and potential targets for CRPC-NE. Patient-derived organoids and xenografts were used to interrogate the timing by which genomic and epigenomic changes and LDTFs contribute to lineage plasticity and the development of CRPC-NE as a resistance mechanism in prostate cancer. Citation Format: Himisha Beltran, Sheng-Yu Ku, Vincenza Conteduca, Alessandro Romanel, Loredana Puca, Michael Sigouros, Juan Miguel Mosquera, Scott T. Tagawa, Andrea Sboner, Olivier Elemento, David Goodrich, David Rickman, Amina Zoubeidi, Francesca Demichelis. Lineage plasticity and the neuroendocrine phenotype as a resistance mechanism in prostate cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2019 Oct 26-30; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2019;18(12 Suppl):Abstract nr CN06-01. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.TARG-19-CN06-01

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207