MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021307559 · doi:10.1002/cjp2.168

Combined CCNE1 high‐level amplification and overexpression is associated with unfavourable outcome in tubo‐ovarian high‐grade serous carcinoma

2020· article· en· W3021307559 on OpenAlexafffund
Angela Chan, Emeka K. Enwere, John B. McIntyre, Holly Wilson, Chidera Nwaroh, Nicholas J. P. Wiebe, Young Ou, Shuhong Liu, Katharina Wiedemeyer, Peter Rambau, Xin Grevers, Donald G. Morris, Paola Neri, C. Blake Gilks, Frank Visser, Nhu D. Le, Li Luo, Linda S. Cook, Martin Köbel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Pathology Clinical Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Health ServicesFoothills Medical CentreAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthUniversité de MontréalAlberta Cancer FoundationTerry Fox Research InstituteCalgary Laboratory Services
KeywordsSerous fluidInternal medicineImmunohistochemistryOvarian cancerSerous carcinomaOvarian carcinomaOncologyMedicineBiologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CCNE1 amplification is a recurrent alteration associated with unfavourable outcome in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). We aimed to investigate whether immunohistochemistry (IHC) can be used to identify CCNE1 amplification status and to validate whether CCNE1 high-level amplification and overexpression are prognostic in HGSC. A testing set of 528 HGSC samples stained with two optimised IHC assays (clones EP126 and HE12) was subjected to digital image analysis and visual scoring. DNA and RNA chromogenic in situ hybridisation for CCNE1 were performed. IHC cut-off was determined by receiver operating characteristics (ROC). Survival analyses (endpoint ovarian cancer specific survival) were performed and validated in an independent validation set of 764 HGSC. Finally, combined amplification/expression status was evaluated in cases with complete data (n = 1114). CCNE1 high-level amplification was present in 11.2% of patients in the testing set and 10.2% in the combined cohort. The optimal cut-off for IHC to predict CCNE1 high-level amplification was 60% positive tumour cells with at least 5% strong staining cells (sensitivity 81.6%, specificity 77.4%). CCNE1 high-level amplification and overexpression were associated with survival in the testing and validation set. Combined CCNE1 high-level amplification and overexpression was present in 8.3% of patients, mutually exclusive to germline BRCA1/2 mutation and significantly associated with a higher risk of death in multivariate analysis adjusted for age, stage and cohort (hazard ratio = 1.78, 95 CI% 1.38-2.26, p < 0.0001). CCNE1 high-level amplification combined with overexpression identifies patients with a sufficiently poor prognosis that treatment alternatives are urgently needed. Given that this combination is mutually exclusive to BRCA1/2 germline mutations, a predictive marker for PARP inhibition, CCNE1 high-level amplification combined with overexpression may serve as a negative predictive test for sensitivity to PARP inhibitors.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.139 · 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

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Pathology Clinical ResearchSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207