MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comprehensive genomic profiling of matched primary prostate cancer tissue and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to assess ontogeny of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations.

2021· article· en· W3134670647 on OpenAlexaff
Taylor Ryan McFarland, Roberto Nussenzveig, Umang Swami, Nicolas Sayegh, Adam Kessel, Prayushi Sharma, Haoran Li, Manish Kohli, Benjamin L. Maughan, Sumanta K. Pal, Neeraj Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineProstateOncologyConcordanceCancerInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

166 Background: Both olaparib and rucaparib have recently been approved for the treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with BRCA1/2 mutations (BRCAm). In the PROFOUND trial, 36.9% of men had either no tissue or tissue that was inadequate for genomic profiling (PMID: 32343890). A recent report suggests BRCAm may be an early event in the evolution of prostate cancer (PMID: 29662167). This suggests comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of primary prostate tissue may suffice to guide treatment selection, even years after tissue collection. Herein, we investigate the ontogeny of BRCAm by comparing CGP of matched primary prostate cancer tissue to CGP of cfDNA. Methods: Eligibility criteria included men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer that had matched CGP of both primary prostate cancer tissue and cfDNA. Genomic profiling was performed by CLIA certified laboratories. Only somatic mutations detectable by both platforms were used for concordance analysis. Results: We identified 198 patients that had matched CGP of primary prostate tissue and cfDNA. Thirteen men had a pathogenic BRCAm in at least one test. Of these 13 positive test for BRCAm, 2 were rearrangements, 1 copy number loss, and 5 were germline mutations. Both platforms tend to filter out germline alterations therefore, they were not included in the estimation of concordance. Overall somatic BRCAm concordance between primary prostate tissue and cfDNA was 196/198 (98%). Notably, no new BRCAm were identified in cfDNA with a median difference of 23.62 (0.1 - 232.2) months between prostate cancer tissue and cfDNA collection. Conclusions: There were no BRCAm detected only in cfDNA, suggesting that BRCAm is an early event in the ontogeny of prostate cancer. Based on this, it is unlikely that delaying sequencing would benefit patients with advanced prostate cancer. In the event that tissue is unavailable or inadequate for CGP, profiling of cfDNA is a valuable alternative for detection of BRCAm.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207