MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310887545 · doi:10.1200/po.22.00245

Implementation of Whole-Genome and Transcriptome Sequencing Into Clinical Cancer Care

2022· review· en· W4310887545 on OpenAlexaff
Edwin Cuppen, Olivier Elemento, Richard Rosenquist, S Nikić, Maarten J. IJzerman, Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, Geert Frederix, Lars‐Åke Levin, Charles G. Mullighan, Reinhard Buettner, Trevor J. Pugh, Sean M. Grimmond, Carlos Caldas, Fabrice André, Ilse Custers, Elı́as Campo, Hans van Snellenberg, Anna Schuh, Hidewaki Nakagawa, Christof von Kalle, Torsten Haferlach, Stefan Fröhling, Vaidehi Jobanputra

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Precision Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer InstituteMedical Research CouncilDeutschen Konsortium für Translationale KrebsforschungKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseUniversity of TwenteKarolinska InstitutetRadiumhemmets ForskningsfonderCancerfondenZonMwNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchVetenskapsrådetCancer Research UK
KeywordsReimbursementHealth careTest (biology)MedicineDiagnostic testComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The combination of whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing (WGTS) is expected to transform diagnosis and treatment for patients with cancer. WGTS is a comprehensive precision diagnostic test that is starting to replace the standard of care for oncology molecular testing in health care systems around the world; however, the implementation and widescale adoption of this best-in-class testing is lacking. METHODS: Here, we address the barriers in integrating WGTS for cancer diagnostics and treatment selection and answer questions regarding utility in different cancer types, cost-effectiveness and affordability, and other practical considerations for WGTS implementation. RESULTS: We review the current studies implementing WGTS in health care systems and provide a synopsis of the clinical evidence and insights into practical considerations for WGTS implementation. We reflect on regulatory, costs, reimbursement, and incidental findings aspects of this test. CONCLUSION: WGTS is an appropriate comprehensive clinical test for many tumor types and can replace multiple, cascade testing approaches currently performed. Decreasing sequencing cost, increasing number of clinically relevant aberrations and discovery of more complex biomarkers of treatment response, should pave the way for health care systems and laboratories in implementing WGTS into clinical practice, to transform diagnosis and treatment for patients with cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations74
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Precision OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207