MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluating the utility of ctDNA in detecting residual cancer and predicting recurrence in patients with serous ovarian cancer.

2022· article· en· W4281827731 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad R. Akbari, Jie Wei Zhu, Fabian Wong, Agata Szymiczek, Gabrielle Ene, Shiyu Zhang, Taymaa May, Steven A. Narod, Joanne Kotsopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkMcMaster UniversityWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOvarian cancerMedicineSerous fluidCancerMinimal residual diseaseOncologyDigital polymerase chain reactionGermlineInternal medicineMalignancyStage (stratigraphy)PathologyCancer researchPolymerase chain reactionGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17588 Background: Ovarian cancer remains the most fatal gynecological malignancy. Patients who have no visible residual disease after surgical resection have a relatively good prognosis. Among these patients, those who later succumb to their cancer are believed to harbour non-detectable cancer cells in the peritoneal cavity after treatment which later lead to recurrence. Analyzing circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in the blood may offer a sensitive method to detect occult (non-visible) residual disease after surgery and to predict disease recurrence. We proposed to determine the proportion of ovarian cancer patients with and without visible residual disease documented after surgery who had detectable ctDNA from their primary tumour in their blood and to evaluate if the presence of ctDNA is associated with survival. Methods: We included biological samples and clinical information from 48 women diagnosed with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Plasma, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour tissue, and white blood cells were used to extract circulating free DNA (cfDNA), tumour DNA and germline DNA, respectively. The plasma sample was collected after surgery and before initiating chemotherapy. We sequenced DNA samples for a panel of 59 breast and ovarian cancer driver genes. DNA variants in matched germline and tumour DNAs were compared to determine tumour specific variants (TSVs) and cfDNA was searched for TSVs to identify the presence of ctDNA in the plasma. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall and recurrence-free survival according to the presence or absence of ctDNA. Results: We found TSVs in 47 patients that were used for detecting ctDNA in their post-surgery plasma. Fifteen (31.9%) of the 47 patients had visible residual disease; of these, all 15 had detectable ctDNA. Among the 31 (68.1%) pateints with no visible residual disease, 24 (77.4%) patients had detectable ctDNA. Of those with no visible residual disease, those patients with detectable ctDNA in post-surgery samples had a higher mortality risk compared to those without detectable ctDNA (HR 2.32; 95% CI: 0.67-8.05), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Conclusions: These findings suggest potential clinical utility in ctDNA to improve upon surgical classification of the residual disease status and a potential predictor of recurrence among women with ovarian cancer. Larger studies are necessary to validate these findings.

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)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.452
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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