MP17-16 COMPARING INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA OF THE PROSTATE TO GRADE AND STAGE: A COPY NUMBER ALTERATION CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP17-16 COMPARING INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA OF THE PROSTATE TO GRADE AND STAGE: A COPY NUMBER ALTERATION CHARACTERIZATION STUDY Helen Pantazopoulos, Afnan Al-Saleh, Mame Kany Diop, David Boucher Roy, Roy Nitulescu, Roula Albadine, and Dominique Trudel Helen PantazopoulosHelen Pantazopoulos More articles by this author , Afnan Al-SalehAfnan Al-Saleh More articles by this author , Mame Kany DiopMame Kany Diop More articles by this author , David Boucher RoyDavid Boucher Roy More articles by this author , Roy NitulescuRoy Nitulescu More articles by this author , Roula AlbadineRoula Albadine More articles by this author , and Dominique TrudelDominique Trudel More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003237.16AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most diagnosed cancer in North American men varying greatly at clinical presentation from indolent to aggressive tumors. An aggressive subtype of PCa is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P), identified in ∼20% of men with PCa. While accurate stratification of these high-risk patients is a clinical necessity, the question arose whether IDC-P could be related to the grade or not. We hypothesized that through the genomic characterization of IDC-P, we could explore the link between IDC-P, grade, and or stage. The objective of this study was to characterize the copy number alterations (CNAs) of IDC-P to aid in the characterization of these high-risk men, while exploring whether IDC-P should be integrated into the grade or stage of PCa. METHODS: We selected 462 radical prostatectomy specimens obtained through The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Specifically, 38 patients were excluded from the original TCGA cohort (n=500) due to stage T4 and incomplete genomic data. We further characterized the TCGA cohort by identifying the IDC-P status (present or not identified) for each patient through the online available tissue. For each patient, IDC-P status was evaluated alongside the CNAs of 488 genes involved in androgen receptor signaling and or carcinogenesis. RESULTS: Out of 462 patients, 41% (191/462) were IDC-P present, and these patients were mostly of high grade (53.9%) and advanced pT3b stage (38.7%). Overall, 38 genes were significantly associated to IDC-P growth, of which, 37 genes were novel and not unique to IDC-P or documented in PCa. Specifically, 10 genes were associated to chromosome 10q deletions, including the well-recognized PTEN, while 28 genes were associated to chromosome 8q amplifications. Of the IDC-P present men identified, 36% (69/191) of these men had multiple deletions and 16% (31/191) of these men had multiple amplifications. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant deletions in 10 genes and amplifications in 28 genes in IDC-P. Importantly, high-risk men with IDC-P have numerous deletions and amplifications in the identified 38 genes. We have identified novel genes, except for PTEN. Indeed, more than 2/3 of these genes are amplified on 8q and their expression could be targeted as biomarkers of IDC-P. We are exploring the presence of these anomalies in PCa and their relation to Grade group (especially cribriform pattern) and or stage. Together, these findings will genomically characterize IDC-P and allow for improved precision in the stratification of these high-risk patients. Source of Funding: Institut du Cancer de Montréal © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e219 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Helen Pantazopoulos More articles by this author Afnan Al-Saleh More articles by this author Mame Kany Diop More articles by this author David Boucher Roy More articles by this author Roy Nitulescu More articles by this author Roula Albadine More articles by this author Dominique Trudel More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".