MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4282943420 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-5291

Abstract 5291: Characterizing the interplay between angiogenic and immunoactive factors of hepatocellular carcinoma

2022· article· en· W4282943420 on OpenAlexaff
Audrey Kapelanski‐Lamoureux, Flemming Kondrup, Lucyna Krzywoń, Stephanie Petrillo, Anthoula Lazaris, Peter Metrakos

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorafenibHepatocellular carcinomaMedicineAngiogenesisContext (archaeology)Liver cancerImmune systemImmunohistochemistryCancerTumor microenvironmentTumor progressionOncologyCancer researchPathologyInternal medicineImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death globally. Patients typically present at an advanced stage and less than 50% reach the maximum 1-year survival rate, when given as first-line treatment, Sorafenib. This highlights the need for early detection and novel therapeutic targets crucial to increase overall survival (OS) for patients with HCC. Given the important role of angiogenesis in HCC from its early stage and its rich immune composition, anti-angiogenic and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), are two therapeutic approaches when combined marked the first treatment in more than a decade to significantly improve the overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with advanced HCC compared to Sorafenib. While the combination of agents inhibiting angiogenesis and ICI have recently entered the clinic, the interplay between angiogenic factors and immunity in the context of this approach remains poorly understood. Here we focus on understanding the interplay between the vascular state of the tumor and the immune response in HCC. As a first step, we focus on defining the immune and vasculature landscape of the central tumor, peripheral tumor, adjacent liver to the tumor, and distal liver regions of each lesion by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Forty (40) formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) human liver tissue samples containing untreated and non-viral HCC tumors, obtained from the Liver Disease Biobank of the RI-MUHC were used to perform IHC. Images were viewed and scored using the Aperio ImageScope software. With respect to the vasculature, we observe that all tumors have a combination of both angiogenic (CD34/Ki67+ve) and co-optioning (CD31 +ve) features, with no uniform distribution. Our immune markers demonstrate that both adaptive and innate immune cells are present at the interface and different tumors demonstrate different levels of infiltration. Next, to identify the immune subtype populations (ie macrophage M1 vs M2, Treg, etc) present, we will use the NanoString Whole Transcriptome Atlas spatial profiler technology. We will also then link the vasculature to any specific immune profile. For example, it has been shown in other cancer types that macrophages are associated with co-option. This project presents preliminary evidence for the interaction of vascular factors with immune cells, thus providing insight into the biological rationale of why 30% of patients responded to combined angiogenic and immunotherapy treatment. Citation Format: Audrey Kapelanski-Lamoureux, Flemming Kondrup, Lucyna Krzywon, Stephanie K. Petrillo, Anthoula Lazaris, Peter Metrakos. Characterizing the interplay between angiogenic and immunoactive factors of hepatocellular carcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 5291.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism→French-language works237,207→