Clinical sequencing identifies potential actionable alterations in a high rate of urachal and primary bladder adenocarcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Administration of targeted therapies provides a promising treatment strategy for urachal adenocarcinoma (UrC) or primary bladder adenocarcinoma (PBAC); however, the selection of appropriate drugs remains difficult. Here, we aimed to establish a routine compatible methodological pipeline for the identification of the most important therapeutic targets and potentially effective drugs for UrC and PBAC. METHODS: Next-generation sequencing, using a 161 cancer driver gene panel, was performed on 41 UrC and 13 PBAC samples. Clinically relevant alterations were filtered, and therapeutic interpretation was performed by in silico evaluation of drug-gene interactions. RESULTS: After data processing, 45/54 samples passed the quality control. Sequencing analysis revealed 191 pathogenic mutations in 68 genes. The most frequent gain-of-function mutations in UrC were found in KRAS (33%), and MYC (15%), while in PBAC KRAS (25%), MYC (25%), FLT3 (17%) and TERT (17%) were recurrently affected. The most frequently affected pathways were the cell cycle regulation, and the DNA damage control pathway. Actionable mutations with at least one available approved drug were identified in 31/33 (94%) UrC and 8/12 (67%) PBAC patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we developed a data-processing pipeline for the detection and therapeutic interpretation of genetic alterations in two rare cancers. Our analyses revealed actionable mutations in a high rate of cases, suggesting that this approach is a potentially feasible strategy for both UrC and PBAC treatments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".