MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract PR08: The genomic landscape of metastatic urothelial carcinoma from circulating tumor DNA

2020· article· en· W3048908406 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian Vandekerkhove, Matti Annala, Jean‐Michel Lavoie, Nora Sundahl, Simon Walz, Takeshi Sano, Andrew J. Murtha, Tilman Todenhöfer, Piet Ost, Kim N., Peter C. Black, Bernhard J. Eigl, Alexander W. Wyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPTENARID1ASomatic cellCancer researchBladder cancerCancerMedicineDNA sequencingCirculating tumor cellOncologyGermline mutationGeneMutationBiologyInternal medicineMetastasisPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The recent expansion of treatment options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) has emphasized the need for molecular biomarkers in this setting. However, knowledge of the somatic genome landscape in mUC is limited; large-scale sequencing efforts have relied on primary tumor tissue from muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), revealing a molecularly heterogeneous disease characterized in particular by high somatic mutation rates. Putative prognostic and predictive biomarkers described from primary tissue need validation in metastatic tumors. Given the challenge of obtaining metastatic tissue, we sought to utilize circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to characterize the somatic landscape in mUC. We collected 162 whole-blood samples from 90 mUC patients. Targeted next-generation sequencing was performed on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and matched leukocyte DNA utilizing a custom 50-gene panel. Somatic alteration frequencies in our metastatic cohort were compared to those reported for primary MIBC by TCGA (Cell 2017, n=412), with data obtained via cBioPortal. Our cohort of 90 mUC patients included 14% with upper tract disease. The median cfDNA sequencing depth was 986x, with ctDNA detectable in at least one blood collection for 81% (73/90) of mUC patients. In 10/73 patients, the estimated tumor mutation burden was ≥30 mutations per Mb. TP53 was the most frequently mutated gene (46/73 ctDNA-positive patients). Chromatin modifiers were also frequently altered: ARID1A 27%, and 25% for KDM6A and KMT2D. Genes mutated in the PI3K pathway included PIK3CA (22%), PTEN (5.5%), and PIK3R1 (1.4%). FGFR3 mutations were identified in 8.2% of patients. ERBB2 mutations were present in 12.3% of patients, and amplification was detected in eight patients. Thus, the metastatic somatic landscape closely resembles primary disease; however, comparison to TCGA dataset revealed mutations in TP53 and FGFR1 were enriched for in the metastatic setting (TP53: 63.0% vs. 48.1%, p = 0.022; FGFR1: 5.5% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.049; two-sided Fisher's exact test). Profiling of ctDNA from a large mUC cohort suggests a relatively similar somatic landscape to primary MIBC. However, alterations in key driver genes are potentially over- or underrepresented in metastatic disease, which has prognostic implications. In mUC, ctDNA profiling is a powerful alternative to metastatic tissue biopsy. This abstract is also being presented as Poster B19. Citation Format: Gillian R. Vandekerkhove, Matti Annala, Jean-Michel Lavoie, Nora Sundahl, Simon Walz, Takeshi Sano, Andrew Murtha, Tilman Todenhöfer, Piet Ost, Kim N. Chi, Peter C. Black, Bernhard Eigl, Alexander W. Wyatt. The genomic landscape of metastatic urothelial carcinoma from circulating tumor DNA [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Bladder Cancer: Transforming the Field; 2019 May 18-21; Denver, CO. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(15_Suppl):Abstract nr PR08.

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: 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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→