MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113287358 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa215.693

PATH-11. PROGNOSTIC SIGNIFICANCE OF EPIGENETIC SUBTYPES AND CpGs ASSOCIATED WITH PROGRESSION TO G-CIMP LOW IN THE EORTC RANDOMIZED PHASE III INTERGROUP CATNON

2020· article· en· W3113287358 on OpenAlexaff
C. Mircea S. Tesileanu, Martin J. van den Bent, Thaís S. Sabedot, Marc Sanson, Alba A. Brandes, Wolfgang Wick, Paul M. Clément, S. C. Erridge, Michael A. Vogelbaum, Anna K. Nowak, Jean Français Baurain, Warren Mason, Helen Wheeler, Michael Weller, Iris de Heer, Hendrikus J. Dubbink, Johan M. Kros, Kenneth Aldape, Pieter Wesseling, Vassilis Golfinopoulos, Thierry Gorlia, Brigitta G. Baumert, Houtan Noushmehr, Pim J. French

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpigeneticsIDH1GliomaOncologyMedicineInternal medicineMethylationBioinformaticsCancer researchBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Uncontrolled studies have suggested that methylation-based epigenetic subtypes can be used for prognostication of glioma. We used the prospective randomized CATNON trial to validate the clinical relevance of these epigenetic subtypes. METHODS The phase III CATNON trial randomized 751 adult patients with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-codeleted anaplastic glioma to 59.4 Gy radiotherapy +/- concurrent and/or adjuvant TMZ. CNV data and methylation data were derived from Infinium MethylationEPIC arrays. Epigenetic subtyping and risk of progression to G-CIMP low were determined from random forest models and 7 specific CpGs (PMID: 29642018). IDH1/2 status was determined with a glioma-tailored NGS panel. Overall survival (OS) was measured from date of randomization. RESULTS Methylation analysis was performed on 654 tumors: 440 were IDH1/2mt, 204 IDH1/2wt and of 10 IDH1/2 status was unknown; 8 IDH1/2mt were 1p/19q codeleted. Based on methylation, tumors were classified as G-CIMP high (n=409), G-CIMP low (n=19), codel-like (n=18), mesenchymal-like (n=107), classic-like (n=48), and PA-like tumors (n=53). Median OS between these epigenetic subtypes varied considerably: codel-like 9.1 yrs, G-CIMP high 9.5 yrs, G-CIMP low 2.8 yrs, mesenchymal-like 1.3 yrs, classic-like 1.6 yrs, and PA-like 2.8 yrs. The difference in OS of the IDH1/2mt astrocytoma subgroup patients was prominent [G-CIMP low vs G-CIMP high: HR 4.12, 95% CI 2.37-7.19, p < 0.001]. Within the IDH1/2mt G-CIMP high astrocytoma patients, 115 tumors were predicted to have risk of progression to G-CIMP low and patients with such tumors indeed had poorer survival [risk vs no-risk: HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.10-2.31, p = 0.02]. Median OS in G-CIMP high tumors with (n=37) and without (n=366) CDKN2A/B HD was 3.3 yrs versus not reached [p< 0.001], in G-CIMP low tumors it was 1.2 yrs (n=6) versus 4.4 yrs (n=12) [p=0.008]. CONCLUSIONS In IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma, G-CIMP status and CDKN2A/B HD are of independent prognostic value.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207