MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282967158 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-2021

Abstract 2021: Wilms tumor and pure erythroid leukemia arising from the same clone in an adolescent

2022· article· en· W4282967158 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Villani, Winnie Lo, Yisu Li, Mohamed Abdelhaleem, Mary Shago, Federico Comitani, My Linh Thibodeau, Sarah Alexander, Uri Tabori, David Malkin, Adam Shlien, Jack Brzezinski

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWilms' tumorMedicineclone (Java method)PathologyLeukemiaNephrectomyBone marrowChemotherapyCancer researchBiologyKidneyInternal medicineGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wilms tumor and pure erythroid leukemia (PEL) are distinct malignancies arising from different tissues. Here we describe a case of an adolescent with a constitutional pathogenic BRCA2 variant who was diagnosed with a Wilms tumor and developed PEL while undergoing treatment. We provide evidence that both malignancies are distinct and arose from the same clone. A 16-year-old boy presented with a diffusely anaplastic Wilms tumor metastatic to liver. He was treated with radical nephrectomy, partial hepatectomy, radiation, and multiagent chemotherapy. Six months into treatment he developed new lung and liver lesions along with cytopenias. A bone marrow aspirate confirmed a diagnosis of PEL. His disease progressed after one cycle of myeloid leukemia-directed chemotherapy and he died of disease shortly after. Samples from his initial renal tumor, blood at Wilms tumor diagnosis, and diagnostic bone marrow for PEL were characterized by whole genome sequencing and RNA sequencing. Two sequence variants were shared in both tumors but were not found in the constitutional tissue (blood at first presentation): a promoter variant in TERT (c.-124C>T) and a missense variant in PDE4DIP (p.Gln1045His). Although neither variant has been reported in Wilms tumor or PEL, the TERT variant has been well described in other tumor types and is associated with decreased survival in some carcinomas. Both tumors also had pathogenic TP53 variants albeit a different one in each tumor (p.Arg175His in the Wilms tumor, p.Asp228* in PEL). Loss of heterozygosity at TP53 was present in both malignancies via copy number loss of 17p with a shared breakpoint. Furthermore, while both malignancies had complex and distinct karyotypes, 7p loss and 22q loss with identical breakpoints were present in both. None of these variants or copy number variants were present in constitutional tissue. RNA sequencing data confirmed the histologic finding that these were distinct malignancies as the expression patterns for each malignancy were consistent with previously published expression data for Wilms tumors and myeloid leukemias respectively. Although the patient had a constitutional pathogenic BRCA2 variant, loss of heterozygosity at that locus was not found in either tumor. Chromosome fragility testing for Fanconi anemia was uninterpretable due to the concomitant use of chemotherapeutic agents at the time of testing, however the patient had no phenotypic features to support this diagnosis. In this case there are multiple lines of evidence suggesting that a Wilms tumor and PEL arose from the same clone including shared TERT variants and copy number variant breakpoints. Kidney and hematopoietic tissue both arise from the embryonic mesoderm suggesting that the earliest alterations occurred in this tissue. The contribution of each shared pathogenic variant (TERT, BRCA2, 17p loss) to tumorigenesis and the role of chemotherapy in PEL development are still under investigation. Citation Format: Anita Villani, Winnie Lo, Yisu Li, Mohamed Abdelhaleem, Mary Shago, Federico Comitani, My Linh Thibodeau, Sarah Alexander, Uri Tabori, David Malkin, Adam Shlien, Jack Brzezinski. Wilms tumor and pure erythroid leukemia arising from the same clone in an adolescent [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 2021.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designCase report
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 ResearchSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207