MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Genomic characterization of <i>ATM</i> alterations in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

2021· article· en· W3124675115 on OpenAlexaff
Sheron Perera, Robert E. Denroche, Spring Holter, Deirdre Kelly, Amy Zhang, Yifan Wang, Anna Dodd, Stephanie Ramotar, Shawn Hutchinson, Mustapha Tehfé, Ravi Ramjeesingh, James Biagi, Julie M. Wilson, Faiyaz Notta, Sandra E. Fischer, George Zogopoulos, Robert C. Grant, Steven Gallinger, Jennifer J. Knox, Grainne M. O’Kane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMount Sinai HospitalNova Scotia Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchToronto General HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPALB2MedicineGenome instabilityLoss of heterozygosityGermlineMUTYHHomologous recombinationDNA repairGeneCancer researchGeneticsGermline mutationBiologyMutationAlleleDNA damageDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

396 Background: BRCA1/2 and PALB2 are genes critical to the faithful repair of double strand breaks through the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway. Alterations in these genes serve as predictive biomarkers to both platinum and PARP inhibitors. Ataxia-telangiectasia mutated ( ATM) is also indirectly involved in HRR; however, its role as a predictive biomarker to DNA damage response agents is debated. Herein we evaluated the genomic characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with ATM alterations on the Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of Advanced Ductal Pancreas Adenocarcinoma for Better Treatment Selection (COMPASS) trial. Methods: Patients on this study undergo a biopsy for whole genome sequencing (WGS) and RNA sequencing prior to chemotherapy; those with germline variants in ATM were reviewed by a genetics counsellor and defined as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, variant of unknown significance (VUS) or benign/likely benign. Genomic characteristics were reviewed and published classifiers of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) were applied to all cases and included the percentage of substitution base signature (SBS) 3, the HRDetect score, the computed algorithm of large scale transitions, telomeric allelic imbalances and loss of heterozygosity (LOH), otherwise known as the genomic instability score (GIS). Results: As of January 2020, 304 patients were enrolled and 245 patients had both WGS and clinical data available. 86 germline variants in ATM were present in 70 patients. The majority of these (80%) were classified as benign or likely benign. 10 VUS were detected and 4 patients (2%) had pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV). Of these 4 patients, LOH or a second somatic hit was evident in 1 case. Upon review of the PVs and VUS, SBS were consistent with typical PDAC and tumour mutational burden was low. HRDetect scores were low ( < 0.1) for 13/14 cases with either a VUS or PV; one VUS without biallelic loss, had a high HRDetect score, with presence of SBS 3 and a high GIS. This particular case was also found to have a tandem duplicator phenotype. None of the 4 cases with PV had evidence of HRD. Furthermore all four were treated with platinum based regimens without evidence of response. Conclusions: In a large series of sequenced pancreatic cancers, the presence of pathogenic germline variants in ATM was rare, with none of the cases demonstrating evidence of HRD. This suggests that this population is unlikely to benefit from PARP inhibition.

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 score0.001
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.332 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→