MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362596960 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-3039

Abstract 3039: Evaluation of intra-tumoral pks+ <i>E. coli</i>, enterotoxigenic <i>B. fragilis</i> and <i>Fusobacterium nucleatum,</i> overall and in early onset disease, in colorectal cancer cases

2023· article· en· W4362596960 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith A.J. Hullar, Keith R. Curtis, Tabitha A. Harrison, Yi Lin, Robert S. Steinfelder, Sonja I. Berndt, Daniel D. Buchanan, Andrew T. Chan, David A. Drew, Jane C. Figueiredo, Amy J. French, Mark A. Jenkins, Johannes Melaku, Vı́ctor Moreno, Tomotaka Ugai, Shuji Ogino, Conghui Qu, Chenxu Qu, Steven Thibodeau, Syed Hassan Ejaz Zaidi, Amanda I. Phipps, Ulrike Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerFusobacterium nucleatumBacteroides fragilisHazard ratioCancerInternal medicineMedicineCarcinogenesisOncologyMicrobiomeMicrosatellite instabilityProportional hazards modelBiologyGastroenterologyCancer researchBioinformaticsGeneticsConfidence intervalMicrosatelliteGeneBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has increased in those 50 years or younger compared to older individuals in recent decades. While the intra-tumoral microbiome is a potent facilitator of tumorigenesis, the role of the microbiome in early onset (eo)CRC is unclear. Identification of the intra-tumoral microbiome may enhance prediction of adverse outcomes to improve survival of CRC overall age groups and eoCRC. Methods: We performed targeted sequencing of tumor and matched normal DNA samples from 3695 colorectal cancer cases within the Genetics and Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) and the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR). Tumor DNA was extracted from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) or fresh frozen tissue. Normal tissue DNA was extracted from blood or normal surrounding colorectal tissue. We designed probes for the bacterial pathogens enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF), polyketide synthase positive E. coli (pks+ EC), and Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn). We used logistic regression to assess tumor-associated bacteria and clinical parameters, tumor molecular characteristics, and tumor stage adjusted for age, sex, and study and a Cox promotional hazard to assess association with CRC-specific survival, overall and in eoCRC, adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex, mutational burden, and microsatellite instability (MSI) and stratified baseline hazards by study. Survival data were available for 2357 and 308 patients, overall and in eoCRC, respectively. Results: The prevalence of different bacteria in tumors differed slightly overall vs. in eoCRC tumors: ETBF (5.2%, 6.3%), pks+ EC (12.9%, 14.8%), and Fn (10.4%, 8.2%). Overall, men had a lower probability of tumors with Fn (odds ratio (OR)=0.8, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.64-0.99, p=0.04) but higher odds of tumors with pks+ EC (OR=1.38, CI=1.14-1.68, p=0.001), compared to women. The odds of prevalent Fn were higher for proximal vs distal tumors (OR=1.76, CI=1.38-2.26, p<0.001), but there was no association between tumor site and pks+ EC or ETBF. MSI-high tumors were more likely to carry Fn (OR=2.79, CI=2.08-3.75, p<0.001) and less likely to carry pks+ EC (OR=0.63, CI=0.44-0.88, p=0.008) when compared to patients with MSS tumors. In patients with non-hypermutated tumors, we observed that pks+ EC positive tumors were associated with better CRC-specific survival (HR=0.73, CI=0.57-0.93, p=0.01), whereas ETBF positive tumors (HR=1.99, CI=1,18-3.36,p=0.009) and Fn positive tumors (HR=1.33, CI=1.04-1.72, p=0.03) were associated with poorer survival. In eo-CRC patients, Fn positive status was associated with poorer survival (HR=2.4, CI= 1.056 - 5.492, p=0.026). Conclusions: We showed that the intra-tumoral microbiome differs in distribution across patient populations and patient survival over all age groups and, specifically, in eoCRC. Citation Format: Meredith A. Hullar, Keith R. Curtis, Tabitha Harrison, Yi Lin, Robert Steinfelder, Sonja I. Berndt, Daniel D. Buchanan, Andrew T. Chan, David A. Drew, Jane Figueiredo, Amy J. French, Tabitha A. Harrison, Mark A. Jenkins, Johannes Melaku, Victor Moreno, Tomotaka Ugai, Shuji Ogino, Conghui Qu, Chenxu Qu, Steven Thibodeau, Syed Zaidi, Amanda I. Phipps, Ulrike Peters, on behalf of GECCO and CCFR investigators. Evaluation of intra-tumoral pks+ E. coli, enterotoxigenic B. fragilis and Fusobacterium nucleatum, overall and in early onset disease, in colorectal cancer cases [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 3039.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→