MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using sequential next-generation sequencing assays to identify germline cancer predisposition variants.

2020· article· en· W3031129979 on OpenAlexaff
Ira L. Kraft, Amy M. Trottier, George F. Steinhardt, Nifang Niu, Pankhuri Wanjari, Wenjun Chen, Jeremy P. Segal, Lucy A. Godley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermlineGermline mutationGeneticsDNA sequencingCancerAlleleSomatic cellMedicineBiologyComputational biologyMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1581 Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) increasingly guides clinical care in hematological malignancies by identifying DNA mutations that change dynamically over time. Clinical samples contain variable numbers of malignant and non-malignant cells. So, careful interpretation is required to determine if a particular variant is somatic, germline, or clonal hematopoietic in origin. Methods: The University of Chicago uses a targeted NGS assay of ~1200 genes, reporting 150 as a clinical test. We aimed to identify individuals with hereditary predisposition by detecting persistent variants on sequential assays regardless of disease state. Results: 943 NGS assays from July 2017 – Feb. 2020 on 711 patients [ages 1 mo – 95 yrs, median 65 yrs] were included. 2,320 variants in 33 genes were identified with 144 patients having the same variant identified on more than one assay. Single nucleotide variants (SNVs) with variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥ 0.3 were prioritized. The first candidate gene identified with potential germline SNVs was CSF3R. 28 unique SNVs in CSF3R were found, 14 were confirmed as germline, 6 somatic, and 8 were unconfirmed due to lack of available tissue. At least 2 confirmed germline CSF3R variants were likely deleterious based on functional testing. Sequential SNVs were quantified using the coefficient of variation, characterizing each by change in VAF over time. Using a worst-case-scenario analysis, in which unconfirmed variants were not counted as germline, a computer algorithm was designed to identify potential germline variants (specificity 0.89, PPV 0.75). Via an iterative method, the algorithm compares new assays to a pool of previously reported tests, flagging patients with potential germline mutations so that biopsies may be studied in the lab, records reviewed, and referrals placed to genetic counselors. To date, 61 patients with 89 likely germline variants have been identified. Known hereditary hematological malignancy genes, such as ATM, ASXL1, CHEK2, DDX41, TSC1, and RUNX1, had the most variants identified. Limitations include the challenge in distinguishing variants that do not change over time, reliance on a targeted NGS panel, and normalizing VAF data prior to analysis. Conclusions: These data highlight the utility of NGS of bone marrow and peripheral blood samples to identify patients suspected of having germline DNA variants. In addition to identifying known predisposition syndromes, one may discover new inherited cancer syndromes and help guide clinical practice in real time.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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