MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313430004 · doi:10.1002/bco2.212

Genomic alterations in neuroendocrine prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2023· review· en· W4313430004 on OpenAlexafffund
Junru Chen, Mingchen Shi, Stephen Yiu Chuen Choi, Yu Wang, Dong Lin, Hao Zeng, Yuzhuo Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBJUI Compass · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaPrevention of Organ FailureBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSichuan UniversityTerry Fox Research InstituteMitacsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsProstate cancerMeta-analysisOncologyBiologyComputational biologyInternal medicineMedicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is a lethal subtype of prostate cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the prevalence of genomic alterations in NEPC and better understand its molecular features to potentially inform precision medicine. Methods EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for eligible studies until March 2022. Study qualities were assessed using the Q‐genie tool. The prevalence of gene mutations and copy number alterations (CNAs) were extracted, and meta‐analysis was performed using R Studio with meta package. Results A total of 14 studies with 449 NEPC patients were included in this meta‐analysis. The most frequently mutated gene in NEPC was TP53 (49.8%), and the prevalence of deleterious mutations in ATM/BRCA was 16.8%. Common CNAs in NEPC included RB1 loss (58.3%), TP53 loss (42.8%), PTEN loss (37.0%), AURKA amplification (28.2%), and MYCN amplification (22.9%). RB1/TP53 alterations and concurrent RB1 and TP53 alterations were remarkably common in NEPC, with a prevalence of 83.8% and 43.9%, respectively. Comparative analyses indicated that the prevalence of (concurrent) RB1/TP53 alterations was significantly higher in de novo NEPC than in treatment‐emergent NEPC (t‐NEPC). Conclusions This study presents the comprehensive prevalence of common genomic alterations and potentially actionable targets in NEPC and reveals the genomic differences between de novo NEPC and t‐NEPC. Our findings highlight the importance of genomic testing in patients for precision medicine and provide insights into future studies exploring different NEPC subtypes.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJUI CompassSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207