MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093369604 · doi:10.1101/2020.10.13.20211516

Circulating tumour cell and cell-free DNA kinetics during radiotherapy in patients with intact head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

2020· preprint· en· W3093369604 on OpenAlexaff
Sweet Ping Ng, Carolyn Hall, Salyna Meas, Vanessa N. Sarli, Houda Bahig, Carlos Cárdenas, Baher Elgohari, Jihong Wang, Jason M. Johnson, Amy C. Moreno, Heath D. Skinner, Adam S. Garden, Lumine Na, Ying Yuan, Diana L. Urbauer, Jack Phan, G. Brandon Gunn, Steven J. Frank, Shalin Shah, David I. Rosenthal, William H. Morrison, Michael MacManus, Clifton D. Fuller, Anthony Lucci

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteRoyal Australian and New Zealand College of RadiologistsNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchRadiological Society of North America
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaCirculating tumor cellInternal medicineOncologyRadiation therapyHead and neck cancerCell-free fetal DNACancerCellStage (stratigraphy)PathologyMetastasisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treatment response relies heavily on macroscopic clinical findings. Blood monitoring of circulating markers during treatment may improve earlier detection of responders versus non-responders during radiotherapy. In this study, patients with intact tumour of HNSCC were enrolled in the prospective PREDICT-HN study. Pre-, after first treatment, weekly, and post-treatment blood samples were collected. CTC was enumerated using the CellSearch system. cfDNA was quantified from cfNA isolated at pre-, mid- and post-treatment timepoints. Blood samples were collected from 45 patients. Of the 339 samples analysed for CTC, 31% had detectable CTCs. Nine patients had detectable CTCs (1-3/7.5ml blood) in pre-treatment samples. After 1 fraction, 16 patients had CTCs detected, with 12 who had no pre-treatment CTC. Sixteen (36%) patients had detectable CTC in final week of treatment. There was no correlation between cancer stage, nodal status and tumour burden with CTC. cfDNA levels increased during treatment, with its highest level in the final week and lowest at post-treatment. Our results showed in HNSCC that CTCs can be detected during radiotherapy, suggesting mobilization into circulation during treatment, with as-yet-unknown viability. cfDNA kinetics during treatment correlated with CTC release, and may indicate apoptotic change. Simple Summary Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treatment response relies heavily on macroscopic clinical findings. Blood monitoring of circulating markers such as circulating tumour cell (CTC) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) during treatment may improve earlier detection of responders versus non-responders during definitive radiotherapy. Although the detection of CTCs and cfDNA in patients with HNSCC has been described, there is minimal data on the kinetics of CTC counts and cfDNA levels during radiotherapy in patients with HNSCC. Here, our study prospectively describes the changes in CTC and cfDNA enumeration during radiotherapy in patients with HNSCC. Our results showed, for the first time to our knowledge, in HNSCC, that CTCs can be detected during radiotherapy, suggesting mobilization into peripheral circulation during treatment, with as-yet-unknown viability. cfDNA kinetics during treatment correlated with CTC release, may indicate apoptotic change during radiotherapy. Combined cfDNA-CTC as an early marker of treatment response should be investigated further.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 venuemedRxivSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207