MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3097691142 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-140624

Three-Dimensional Telomere Analysis Using Teloview® Technology Predicts the Response of Classic Hodgkin's Lymphoma Patients to First Line Therapy at Point of Diagnosis

2020· article· en· W3097691142 on OpenAlexaff
Sherif Louis, Nathalie A. Johnson, Pierre Brousset, Olga Ludkovski, Yulia Shifrin, Sabine Mai, Hans Knecht

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaOntario GenomicsMcGill UniversityCancerCare ManitobaJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsABVDDacarbazineMedicineBrentuximab vedotinInternal medicineOncologyVinblastineChemotherapy regimenChlorambucilLymphomaChemotherapyVincristineHodgkin lymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical Hodgkin's Lymphoma (cHL) has been well studied over the past few decades. Newly diagnosed patients are treated with combinations of chemotherapeutics, the most common of which includes adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD). Approximately 75-85% of newly diagnosed cHL patients show favourable outcomes in response to ABVD treatment resulting in long lasting remission. The remaining 15-25% of diagnosed cHL patients will either show primary resistance to ABVD or relapse during or after the completion of therapy. Despite the fact that cHL biology has been extensively investigated, a robust biomarker to predict initial anthracycline based treatment failure remains an unresolved challenge in the management of the disease. Refractory and relapsing HL patients can be treated with several other treatment modalities including the recently developed brentuximab vedotin, and the PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The improvement in the outcomes of refractory and relapsed cHL patients treated with such advanced therapeutics presents a rational to advance such therapeutics to first line therapy for all newly diagnosed cHL patients. However, these therapeutics are accompanied with more adverse side effects compared to ABVD, and they present a significantly higher cost burden on the healthcare systems. In addition, clinical studies have shown that not all patients do respond favourably to these therapeutics. In spite of the development of the advanced therapies, the absence of a tool to stratify cHL patients at point of diagnosis remains to be a critical unmet clinical need. In previous reports, the 3-dimensional analysis of telomeres using TeloView® technology conducted on a proof of concept cohort of 27 HL patients revealed that TeloView® analysis, on the group patient level, showed distinct telomere profiles for HL patients who relapsed versus patients who remained stable. In this report, we conducted a retrospective clinical study including a multi-centre cohort of 156 HL patients, 125 remained stable for over 5 years, and 31 patients relapsed within 12 months. We targeted to identify, on the individual patient's level, significant telomeres parameters suitable to predict individual patient outcome at point of diagnosis. General univariate analysis including t-test and Anova identified derived telomeres parameters suitable for predictive modelling analysis including: total and average telomeres length, telomeric aggregates, nuclear volume, quartile nuclear volume and very short telomeres (t-stumps). Multivariate analysis using logistic regression procedures allowed for developing of significant predictive models using combinations of 2, 3 & 4 predictors. The highest predictive power was attained by a 4-predictors model with a predictive power of 0.76 presented as area under the curve (AUC) in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve illustration, achieving 75% positive predictive value, and 71% negative predictive value. The results of this study offer a long awaited path to a precision medicine approach for the treatment of cHL patients. The ready-to-use predictive model will further be validated retrospectively on an independent patient cohort, and can further be validated prospectively in longitudinal studies once the test is adopted in the clinic. Disclosures Louis: Telo Genomics Corp.: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Johnson:Roche/Genentech, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech, Merck: Honoraria. Ludkovski:Telo Genomics Corp.: Current Employment. Shifrin:Telo Genomics Corp.: Current Employment. Mai:Telo Genomics Corp.: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Knecht:Telo Genomics Corp.: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

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)0.001
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→