MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exomes and transcriptomes to reveal actionable findings in patients with negative-targeted panel sequencing.

2020· article· en· W3029949142 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eric Y. Stutheit-Zhao, Jonathon Torchia, Alexander Fortuna, Dax Torti, Celeste Yu, Elizabeth Shah, Aoife J McCarthy, Tracy Stockley, Peter Sabatini, John M.S. Bartlett, Lillian L. Siu, Philippe L. Bédard, Trevor J. Pugh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExome sequencingMedicineExomeGeneticsDNA sequencingCancerTranscriptomeComputational biologyBioinformaticsMutationGeneBiologyInternal medicineGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3562 Background: Next generation sequencing targeted panels increasingly inform clinical decisions, but may miss actionable findings detectable by whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNA-seq. There has been no direct comparison of WES plus RNA-seq against targeted panel sequencing to determine its added utility. To address this, we performed WES and RNA-seq analysis in a cohort of 100 patients with no actionable findings on prior panel sequencing. Methods: Ontario-wide Cancer Targeted Nucleic Acid Evaluation (OCTANE; NCT02906943) has sequenced 2,106 patients using a 161-gene Oncomine or 555-gene Hi5 panel. 100 patients (98 Hi5, 2 Oncomine) were chosen for further sequencing. Tumor (100x coverage) and normal (50x) exomes and tumor transcriptomes were sequenced on Illumina HiSeq2500 or NextSeq550. Interpretation included knowledgebase annotation (e.g. OncoKB, CIViC), mutation signatures, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) scores, gene expression, and pathway analysis. Findings were deemed “actionable” if they could directly inform management or trial eligibility. Results: WES and RNA-seq identified one or more novel actionable findings in 38 patients. Of these, the main actionable finding was tumor mutation burden (TMB), mutation signature, or HRD score in 19 (50%), a copy number variant in 16 (42%), a fusion in 2 (5%), and a point mutation in 1 (2.6%). WES identified a MALAT1-GLI1 fusion in a cancer of unknown primary (CUP) whose transcriptome was consistent with gastric cancer, together suggesting the diagnosis of a rare gastroblastoma. To date, two cases have received exome-supported targeted therapy: (1) a metastatic high grade serous ovarian cancer, HRD-high, treated with olaparib then cisplatin for a combined 15 months, and (2) a metastatic neuroendocrine rectal tumor with RICTOR amplification treated with everolimus starting in Dec 2016 until last follow-up in Sep 2019. Of 62 patients with no actionable finding, expanded sequencing identified one or more known cancer drivers in 25 (40%): 17 CNVs, 3 fusions, and 5 point mutations or indels. In 16 patients, an oncogenic variant found on panel was not captured by WES, and may represent artifacts, germline mutations, or subclonal/localized variants. Conclusions: WES and RNA-seq expanded detection of actionable biomarkers and oncogenic mutations, especially CNV, TMB/signatures, and HRD. Two cases have undergone exome-supported targeted treatment. We performed the first WES of a rare gastroblastoma, originally a CUP but reclassified by expanded fusion detection and RNA-seq.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207