MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PR002: Global proteomic profiling of endometrial carcinomas identify prognostic markers

2021· article· en· W3128925387 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn R. Cochrane, Gian Luca Negri, Jutta Huvila, David Farnell, Emily A. Thompson, Winnie Yang, Genny Trigo-Gonzales, Amy Lum, Sandra Spencer, Ryan Riley, Samuel Leung, Christine Chow, Jamie Lim, Martin Köebel, Stefan Kommoss, Friedrich Kommoss, Lien Hoang, David G. Huntsman, Gregg B. Morin, Jessica N. McAlpine

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryVancouver General HospitalGenome British ColumbiaSpinal Cord Injury BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometrial cancerOncologyCohortInternal medicineMedicineDiseaseOvarian cancerMicrosatellite instabilityOverall survivalBioinformaticsCancerBiologyGeneGeneticsMicrosatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While endometrial cancer (EC) has an overall good prognosis, some patients do poorly and there is room for refinement within current classification systems. Using the TCGA prognostic grouping of EC, our group developed the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE), which reliably and reproducibly stratifies ECs into four prognostic groups: POLEmut, p53wt/NSMP, MMRd (mismatch repair deficient), and p53abn, with the best prognosis for POLEmut to worst prognosis for p53abn. In the current study, global proteomic analysis was performed using the clinical SP3-CTP workflow on archival tissues from 151 patients including 40 MMRd, 34 POLEmut, 34 p53abn and 43 p53wt/NSMP, with clinical follow up data. Included in the cohort were 11 replicate samples (different parts of the same tumor) to examine spatial heterogeneity in the proteomic profiles. Replicate samples were highly correlated to each other, with the exception of three POLEmut cases with very poor correlation in the proteome in different parts of the tumor. As POLEmut tumors have an exceedingly high mutation burden, it is not surprising that this translates to heterogeneity at the proteomic level. Disease specific survival was examined to determine prognostic significance within the whole cohort and within individual molecular subgroups. High TOMM34, PLTP or TSFM expression was correlated to poor disease specific survival in the whole cohort and independently prognostic when molecular subtype, grade and histotype are considered. High MGST, NCL or XPNPEP3 were associated with poor outcomes within the p53wt/NSMP group. POLD2 and ENAH were prognostic within the MMRd group. Within the p53abn group, ACADVL and BABAM1 were found to be prognostic, and GRB7 was found to be enriched in the p53abn group compared to other molecular subtypes. As the group with the worst prognosis, p53abn group could benefit from novel therapeutic avenues. ACADVL, BABAM1 and GRB7 all lie within pathways that are potentially targetable. Our proteomic analysis has identified prognostic markers that may be useful in further refining current molecular classification to help guide treatment decisions. Furthermore, new therapeutic interventions could be developed to target proteins and pathways identified by this proteomics screen. Citation Format: Dawn R. Cochrane, Gian Negri, Jutta Huvila, David A. Farnell, Emily Thompson, Winnie Yang, Genny Trigo-Gonzales, Amy Lum, Sandra Spencer, Ryan Riley, Samuel Leung, Christine Chow, Jamie Lim, Martin Koebel, Stefan Kommoss, Friedrich Kommoss, Lien Hoang, David G. Huntsman, Gregg Morin, Jessica N. McAlpine. Global proteomic profiling of endometrial carcinomas identify prognostic markers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Endometrial Cancer: New Biology Driving Research and Treatment; 2020 Nov 9-10. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(3_Suppl):Abstract nr PR002.

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: none
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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.353 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207