MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Rapid point of care NGS in colorectal cancer.

2022· article· en· W4206327726 on OpenAlexaff
William Raskin, Parneet Cheema, Kirstin Perdrizet, Marco Iafolla, Shaan Dudani, Brandon S. Sheffield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoWilliam Osler Health System
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnaround timeMedicineKRASNeuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homologColorectal cancerOncologyPoint of careROS1Internal medicineCancerPathologyAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

172 Background: Next generation sequencing (NGS) is the laboratory cornerstone of precision oncology treatment. In advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), current guidelines recommend testing RAS, BRAF and MMR biomarkers as standard of care. The added value of comprehensive genomic profiling is so far unclear. Traditional NGS operations are complicated, requiring specialized equipment and personnel. In many jurisdictions, cancer patients are treated in publicly-funded community hospitals, where NGS is not typically utilized and access to testing via send-out services is associated with lengthy turnaround times. Here, we have validated and implemented one of the world's first "point of care" NGS services. Our early experience on NGS implementation and impact in CRC patients is described. Methods: All NGS studies were performed using the Oncomine Precision Assay (OPA) on the genexus integrated sequencer. NGS was performed at the request of the treating physician. All NGS was performed in a local community pathology lab by histotechnologists, simultaneously responsible for IHC testing (such as MMR) and interpreted by anatomic pathologists in conjunction with routine diagnostic pathology services. Retrospective chart review was performed for all patients undergoing sequencing studies and key data, including turnaround time and NGS findings were extracted from the electronic medical record for analysis. Results: A total of 51 cases with CRC were tested using point of care NGS from November 2020-August 2021, initiated by treating physicians. The median turnaround time for results was 3 days. Oncogenic driver events were identified in 46 (90%) cases, including canonical mutations in KRAS, NRAS and BRAF (Table). Actionable mutations were identified in 13 (25%) samples that would not have been identified with single-gene testing. Conclusions: Here, we show that comprehensive NGS can reveal occult resistance mechanisms to standard therapy and identify actionable biomarkers in a substantial proportion of patients with CRC. NGS added valuable information compared to guideline-recommended testing standards. Our study demonstrates that local testing can have rapid turnaround times. To our knowledge, this is the first report of “point of care” NGS in CRC. Further follow up is needed to explore the utility of these expanded roles for NGS testing. [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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.363 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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