MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047312634 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.pedca19-b04

Abstract B04: Three distinct subgroups of Wilms’ tumors with novel molecular features and important clinical implications are defined by genome-wide DNA methylation profiles

2020· article· en· W3047312634 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jack Brzezinski, Sanaa Choufani, Rodrigo Romao, Cheryl Shuman, Haiying Chen, Ronald Grant, Armando J. Lorenzo, Rosanna Weksberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA methylationMethylationEpigeneticsCohortWilms' tumorBiologyCancerGeneOncologyGenomeGeneticsBioinformaticsMedicineInternal medicineGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Wilms’ tumor (WT) is the most common childhood renal cancer. Although many children are cured with standard therapy, survivors frequently suffer chronic diseases as a result of their treatment. Historical evidence suggests that a number of children could be cured with surgery alone; however, many of these children are currently difficult to identify. Although the majority of mutations described in this disease are not prognostic, the commonest single molecular alteration in WT is epigenetic—loss of imprinting at chromosome 11p15. We therefore examined genome-wide patterns of DNA methylation in WTs to identify groups of patients with low risk of relapse. Methods: We enrolled two cohorts of patients: a discovery cohort consisting of 32 tumors and 21 matched kidneys was recruited at the time of surgery at our hospital. A validation cohort included 40 tumor-normal pairs from the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) biobank and an additional 11 pairs from our hospital. All samples had genome-wide DNA methylation and copy number variation data generated. The samples from COG additionally had whole-exome sequencing while 22 local tumors had RNA sequencing. Results: Unsupervised clustering of DNA methylation data demonstrated three DNA methylation subgroups that could be reproduced in the validation cohort using a “signature” of selected differentially methylated sites. One group (“PRO”) had genome-wide loss of methylation with specific gain of methylation at renal development genes and tumor-suppressor genes. This group also had increased expression of genes related to cell proliferation. Mutations in microRNA processing genes were found exclusively in this group and were associated with dysregulation of microRNA expression. All known cases of relapse were found in this group. A second group (“DIFF”) had a DNA methylation profile similar to normal kidney, no copy number alterations, reduced expression of genes associated with early renal development, and mutations only in WT1 or CTNNB1. No relapses were known in this group, but there was an increased incidence of bilateral disease. A third group (“INT”) had intermediate methylation values at all signature sites, a gene expression profile similar to the DIFF group, and increased microRNA dysregulation. All tumors in the INT group had either mutations in TRIM28, epithelial histology, or both. Discussion: Genome-wide DNA methylation profiling demonstrates three subgroups of WT with distinct molecular and clinical characteristics. The DIFF group has molecular features consistent with a differentiation process occurring. These patients may be candidates for therapy reduction. The INT group suggests that some patients with wild-type TRIM28 share features with tumors with mutations in the gene—known to be associated with low risk of relapse. This group may also be a candidate for therapy reduction. We are now investigating the features that drive increased proliferation in the PRO group as these may be targets of future therapy for these higher-risk patients. Citation Format: Jack Brzezinski, Sanaa Choufani, Rodrigo Romao, Cheryl Shuman, Haiying Chen, Ronald Grant, Armando Lorenzo, Rosanna Weksberg. Three distinct subgroups of Wilms’ tumors with novel molecular features and important clinical implications are defined by genome-wide DNA methylation profiles [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on the Advances in Pediatric Cancer Research; 2019 Sep 17-20; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(14 Suppl):Abstract nr B04.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207