MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362594584 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-69

Abstract 69: Minimally invasive brain metastases are characterized by elevated immune cell infiltrate

2023· article· en· W4362594584 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah M. Maritan, Elham Karimi, Matthew Dankner, Miranda Yu, Aldo Hernández-Corchado, Morteza Rezanejad, Parvaneh Fallah, Benoit Fiset, Yuhong Wei, Stéphanie Lam, Ali Nehme, Ian R. Watson, Morag Park, Yasser Riazalhosseini, Hamed S. Najafabadi, Kevin Petrecca, Marie‐Christine Guiot, Daniela F. Quail, Logan A. Walsh, Peter M. Siegel

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreConcordia UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerLung cancerBrain metastasisMedicineGene signatureMelanomaCancer researchImmunotherapyTranscriptomeCancerTumor microenvironmentImmune systemMetastasisPathologyBiologyInternal medicineImmunologyGene expressionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Cancer metastasis to the brain is a common complication of advanced disease with limited therapeutic options. Inefficient treatment is influenced, in part, by the unique composition of the brain microenvironment. Brain metastases (BrM) grow in two distinct patterns, either as minimally invasive (MI) masses with well-defined borders, or as tumors with highly invasive (HI) growth into surrounding brain tissue. HI BrM are associated with poor prognoses compared to MI BrM; however, differences in the tumor immune microenvironments (TIME) between these two lesion types remain largely unknown. Here, we investigate how the TIME differs between HI and MI BrM. Methods: We use Nanostring Digital Spatial Profiling coupled with the Cancer Transcriptome Atlas panel on 5 MI and 15 HI BrM patient samples (lung and breast cancer). This technique enables specific isolation of cancer cells at the tumor-brain interface and quantification of 1,825 cancer-specific RNA targets. Additionally, we perform imaging mass cytometry (IMC) on 119 BrM samples (lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, other) from 46 patients, encompassing over 350,000 cells. Samples represent BrM from various primary sites, and include patient-matched samples from the brain-tumor interface (‘margin’) or the centre of the metastatic lesion (‘core’). Results: The Nanostring Digital Spatial Profiling revealed a list of 106 and 73 differentially expressed genes in MI vs HI breast and lung BrM, respectively. Gene set enrichment analyses revealed that an interferon gamma (IFNγ) pathway signature was enriched in MI BrM and lost in HI BrM, which was confirmed by immunohistochemical staining for pSTAT1, consistent with an “immune hot” TIME in MI BrM when compared to HI lesions. Using IMC technology, we identified 20 different cell types, activation states, and spatially-defined cellular neighbourhoods across our BrM patient samples. In comparison to MI samples, HI BrM have lower numbers of B cells, CD4+ T cells, and CD4- CD8- T cells in both the core and margin samples, and lower numbers of CD8+ T cells and regulatory T cells in the margin samples only. Discussion: These data suggest that HI BrM invade into an immunosuppressed microenvironment while MI BrM are characterized by an active anti-tumor immune infiltrate. Together, this work suggests potential immune regulation of BrM invasion, which warrants further investigation. Citation Format: Sarah M. Maritan, Elham Karimi, Matthew Dankner, Miranda W. Yu, Aldo Hernandez-Corchado, Morteza Rezanejad, Parvaneh Fallah, Benoit Fiset, Yuhong Wei, Stephanie Lam, Ali Nehme, Ian R. Watson, Morag Park, Yasser Riazalhosseini, Hamed Najafabadi, Kevin Petrecca, Marie-Christine Guiot, Daniela F. Quail, Logan A. Walsh, Peter M. Siegel. Minimally invasive brain metastases are characterized by elevated immune cell infiltrate [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 69.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207