Circulating Tumor DNA as a Biomarker in Patients With Stage III and IV Wilms Tumor: Analysis From a Children's Oncology Group Trial, AREN0533
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE The utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analyses has not been established in the risk stratification of Wilms tumor (WT). We evaluated the detection of ctDNA and selected risk markers in the serum and urine of patients with WT and compared findings with those of matched diagnostic tumor samples. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifty of 395 children with stage III or IV WT enrolled on Children's Oncology Group trial AREN0533 had banked pretreatment serum, urine, and tumor available. Next-generation sequencing was used to detect ctDNA. Copy-number changes in 1q, 16q, and 1p, and single-nucleotide variants in serum and urine were compared with tumor biopsy data. Event-free survival (EFS) was compared between patients with and without ctDNA detection. RESULTS ctDNA was detected in the serum of 41/50 (82%) and in the urine in 13/50 (26%) patients. Agreement between serum ctDNA detection and tumor sequencing results was as follows: 77% for 1q gain, 88% for 16q deletions, and 70% for 1p deletions, with ĸ-coefficients of 0.56, 0.74, and 0.29, respectively. Sequencing also demonstrated that single-nucleotide variants detected in tumors could be identified in the ctDNA. There was a trend toward worse EFS in patients with ctDNA detected in the serum (4-year EFS 80% v 100%, P = .14). CONCLUSION ctDNA demonstrates promise as an easily accessible prognostic biomarker with potential to detect tumor heterogeneity. The observed trend toward more favorable outcome in patients with undetectable ctDNA requires validation. ctDNA profiling should be further explored as a noninvasive diagnostic and prognostic tool in the risk-adapted treatment of patients with WT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".