MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extracellular vesicle-based biomarker assay for the detection of early-stage ovarian cancer.

2022· article· en· W4286296168 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Bortolin, Daniel P. Salem, Jonian Grosha, Ibukunoluwapo O. Zabroski, Sanchari Banerjee, Daniel Gusenleitner, Kelly M. Biette, Christopher R. Sedlak, Anthony D. Couvillon, Peter A. Duff, Delaney M. Byrne, MacKenzie Sadie King, Amy Jamieson, Emily S. Winn-Deen, Jessica N. McAlpine, David Huntsman, Steven J. Skates, Eric K. Huang, Joseph Charles Sedlak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicExtracellular vesicles in disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer AgencyVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerBiomarkerStage (stratigraphy)CancerSerous fluidExtracellular vesicleInternal medicineOncologyCohortCancer researchGastroenterologyMicrovesiclesmicroRNABiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5542 Background: Detection of cancer with improved discrimination compared to current blood tests could be achieved using an approach that assesses extracellular vesicles (EVs). This approach should have high sensitivity (se) because of EVs abundance in blood and high specificity (sp) by assaying EVs with multiple cancer-related protein and glycosylation epitopes (PGEs) co-localized on their surfaces. We are developing a platform technology that detects multiple cancer-related PGEs co-localized on the same EV using immunoaffinity-capture and proximity-ligation qPCR. In this study, we compare the performance of this technology vs plasma CA125 for correctly categorizing early-stage high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) vs healthy/benign ovarian tumors (OT). Methods: We evaluated our EV-based platform technology using 7 PGE combinations to discriminate HGSOC from benign adnexal masses. We first derived a prediction model on a retrospectively collected cohort of 42 HGSOC and 26 benign OT samples from 2 commercial vendors and 24 healthy controls (HC) using a machine-learning algorithm. We validated this model on an independent cohort [89 HGSOC: Stage I (17), II (35), III (37); 192 benign OT] from university-associated biobanks and 124 HC. We also assessed the assay’s performance in plasma from 87 women with off-target cancers and 42 women with inflammatory conditions from commercial vendors. For each sample, we also measured CA125 levels using a commercial ELISA. Results: The prediction model distinguishes HGSOC from benign and HC with an AUC of 0.965 (95% CI 0.93-0.99), with 89.9% (0.82-0.95) se at 98% sp. For stage I/II HGSOC, the model achieves an AUC of 0.942 (0.9-0.99), with 84.6% (0.72-0.93) se at 98% sp. By comparison, CA125 achieves an AUC of 0.875 (0.81-0.94) and 44.2% (0.3-0.59) se at 98% sp. Direct comparison of CA125 and our model shows a significant difference at 98% sp for both all and stage I/II HGSOC (McNemar p-val < 0.001). When comparing HGSOC to HC, there is no significant difference between our model and CA125 (p-val = 1.0). There is a significant difference when comparing patients with all stage and stage I/II HGSOC to patients with benign OT (p-val < 0.001). Our assay had 1 false positive and CA125 had 3 false positives out of 42 inflammatory cases. Conclusions: These preliminary data suggest our platform technology for detecting PGEs co-localized on individual EVs may detect all stages of HGSOC from plasma with high se at a very high sp. Our assay may improve on CA125 by distinguishing stage I/II HGSOC from benign OT and could have clinical utility for both early detection and surgical referral recommendation for benign and malignant OT. While the diverse cohorts in this study may present challenges in interpretation, the reproducibility in an independent cohort is encouraging and supports further investigation using cases and controls from well-defined cohort studies.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 OncologySame topicExtracellular vesicles in diseaseFrench-language works237,207