MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stem-like markers in the circulating tumor cells assessment in ovarian cancer.

2021· article· en· W3170076218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Gening, Т. В. Абакумова, И. И. Антонеева, Т. П. Генинг

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsCirculating tumor cellMedicineCD44Ovarian cancerEpithelial cell adhesion moleculeInternal medicineOncologyStem cellCancer stem cellProgression-free survivalStage (stratigraphy)CancerPathologyBiologyOverall survivalCellMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17542 Background: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a potential source of dissemination and relapse in ovarian cancer (OC). Stem cell properties can provide a survival advantage for CTCs. The clinical significance of stem-like CTCs in OC remains to be studied. We aimed to assess the quantities of the stem, epithelial, mesenchymal CTCs and their relationships with the clinical parameters in the OC. Methods: Peripheral blood samples (7.5 ml) were obtained from patients with primary epithelial OC before treatment. CTCs were isolated by flow cytometry (Cytoflex S (Beckman Coulter, USA)) using antibodies to CD45 (BioLegend, USA); CD44 (BioLegend, USA), CD133 (Miltenyi biotec, Germany), ALDH (Stemcell, Canada) to detect the stem markers; EpCAM (BioLegend, USA), cytokeratins 8, 18 (Abcam plc., UK), vimentin (BioLegend, USA) for epithelial and mesenchymal markers. Blood samples from patients with benign ovarian tumors served as a control. Informed voluntary consent was obtained from all the women. Statistical processing included Mann-Whitney U-test, linear regression, Cox proportional hazards model for progression-free survival (PFS) (Statistica 13.0 (TIBCO, USA)). Results: The study included 30 patients, median age 64 (34-76) years. 15 patients had a FIGO stage IV, 12 - stage III, 1 – stage II and 1 – stage I. The content of CTCs populations is presented in the table. The CTCs counts did not differ depending on age, platelet count, and stage 3 or 4. The amount of CD45-CK+Vim- was higher in the presence of ascites (p = 0.035). We found a regression relationship between the serum CA-125 and the number of CD45-CD44+CD133+ (R2= 0.220, p = 0.016); the leukocyte count in blood and CD45-CD44+ALDHhigh (R2= 0.234, p = 0.017); the number of CD45-Vim+ and CD45-CD44+CD133+ALDH+ (R2= 0.305, p = 0.014); CD45-CK-Vim+ and CD45-EpCAM+CK+ (R2= 0.717, p < 0.001). The Cox regression model for PFS included the number of CD45-CD44+CD133+ALDH+ (HR 1.51 95% CI 1.01-2.24 p = 0.043) and the cytoreductive surgery performance (HR 0.09 95% CI 0.01-0.89 p = 0.039) during the first line of treatment. Conclusions: Various populations of circulating tumor cells coexist in ovarian cancer patients. The use of a combination of stem markers in the CTCs detection can increase their prognostic value in OC. This work was supported by the RFBR grant No. 19-315-90011.[Table: see text]

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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207