MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362595709 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-3142

Abstract 3142: Enabling whole genome sequencing analysis from FFPE specimens in clinical oncology

2023· article· en· W4362595709 on OpenAlexaff
Dylan Domenico, Gunes Gundem, Max F. Levine, Juanes E. Arango-Ossa, Pauline Robbe, Georgios Asimomitis, Cassidy C. Cobbs, Emily Stockfisch, Janine Senz, Dawn R. Cochrane, Neeman Mohibullah, Neerav Shukla, Sohrab P. Shah, Andrew McPherson, Anna Schuh, Andrew L. Kung, Elli Papaemmanuil

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndelConcordanceWhole genome sequencingGenomeBiologyGeneticsComputational biologyDNA sequencingINDEL MutationMutationGeneSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Whole genome sequencing (WGS) enables the identification of all cancer associated biomarkers in a patient’s tumor genome. Whilst fresh frozen (FF) derived WGS data provides optimal data quality, the majority of clinical biospecimens are from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue which results in DNA damage and an increase in artifactual mutation calls. Development of analytical frameworks tailored to FFPE derived WGS data can unlock the potential of genome profiling in clinical oncology. We performed comprehensive WGS analysis on 58 matched FF/FFPE specimens derived from 3 cancer centers. Consensus calling detected high-confidence somatic mutations across variant classes including: single nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions/deletions (indels), structural variants (SVs) and copy number aberrations (CNAs). For each sample, genome-wide mutational patterns including tumor mutational burden (TMB), SNV/indel signatures, and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) scores were estimated. We developed a random forest based framework using 33 features to learn mutation patterns associated with FFPE artifacts and implemented a filtration strategy for FFPE derived WGS data within a clinical prototype analytical workflow. We identified a high degree of concordance (~91%, n=192/210) for oncogenic variants between FF/FFPE WGS data. Comparison of small mutation calls presented an average 2-fold increase in FFPE samples with a range up to 152x for SNVs and 43x for indels. However, this was not the case for SVs: -0.4x (range -0.8-1.4). We demonstrate that genome-wide mutation patterns were significantly affected, impacting estimates for TMB, HRD and signature contributions. On average, TMB was overestimated in FFPE (median=10.3, range: 1.4-94) versus FF (median=3.4, range:0.04-29.6). For 7 patients with evidence of HRD in FF, HRD scores did not reach statistical significance in FFPE. Mutational signatures in FFPE were enriched for COSMIC signatures 37 and 5. Our artifact classification model achieved ROC AUC of 97.5% and precision-recall of 98.9%. Post artifact filtration, precision in SNV/indel calling was increased from 49.3% to 93.4% and 61.8% to 82.7% respectively with no effect on driver alterations. This increased global signal concordance drastically, with comparable TMB scores (median 2.4; range .03-26.1) and improved cosine similarity for SNV/indel signatures (median 0.98; range 0.40-1). HRD was successfully detected in 7/7 patients from FFPE derived data post filtering with probability scores ranging from 0.76-1. We demonstrate that FFPE specimens harbor a variable increase in artifactual mutation burden in SNV/indels but not in SVs. We propose an effective filtering procedure which successfully removes FFPE related artifacts enabling accurate profiling of clinically relevant driver mutations and genome-wide mutation patterns from readily available FFPE-derived tumor specimens. Citation Format: Dylan Domenico, Gunes Gundem, Max F. Levine, Juanes E. Arango-Ossa, Pauline Robbe, Georgios Asimomitis, Cassidy Cobbs, Emily Stockfisch, Janine Senz, Dawn Cochrane, Neeman Mohibullah, Neerav Shukla, Sohrab P. Shah, Andrew McPherson, Anna Schuh, Andrew L. Kung, Elli Papaemmanuil. Enabling whole genome sequencing analysis from FFPE specimens in clinical oncology [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 3142.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 Research→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→