MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378193816 · doi:10.1200/go.22.00384

<i>QPOLE</i>: A Quick, Simple, and Cheap Alternative for <i>POLE</i> Sequencing in Endometrial Cancer by Multiplex Genotyping Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction

2023· article· en· W4378193816 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Sophie V M van den Heerik, Natalja T. ter Haar, Lisa Vermij, Jan J. Jobsen, Mariël Brinkhuis, Suzan M. Roothaan, Alicia León‐Castillo, Gitte Ørtoft, Estrid Høgdall, Claus Høgdall, Tom van Wezel, Ludy Lutgens, Marie A.D. Haverkort, J Khattra, Jessica N. McAlpine, Carien L. Creutzberg, Vincent T.H.B.M. Smit, C. Blake Gilks, Nanda Horeweg, Tjalling Bosse

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Global Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaSurrey Memorial Hospital
FundersVarian Medical Systems
KeywordsGenotypingMultiplexMultiplex polymerase chain reactionPolymerase chain reactionEndometrial cancerComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsCancerGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE Detection of 11 pathogenic variants in the POLE gene in endometrial cancer (EC) is critically important to identify women with a good prognosis and reduce overtreatment. Currently, POLE status is determined by DNA sequencing, which can be expensive, relatively time-consuming, and unavailable in hospitals without specialized equipment and personnel. This may hamper the implementation of POLE-testing in clinical practice. To overcome this, we developed and validated a rapid, low-cost POLE hotspot test by a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay, QPOLE. MATERIALS AND METHODS Primer and fluorescence-labeled 5′-nuclease probe sequences of the 11 established pathogenic POLE mutations were designed. Three assays, QPOLE-frequent for the most common mutations and QPOLE-rare-1 and QPOLE-rare-2 for the rare variants, were developed and optimized using DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissues. The simplicity of the design enables POLE status assessment within 4-6 hours after DNA isolation. An interlaboratory external validation study was performed to determine the practical feasibility of this assay. RESULTS Cutoffs for POLE wild-type, POLE-mutant, equivocal, and failed results were predefined on the basis of a subset of POLE mutants and POLE wild-types for the internal and external validation. For equivocal cases, additional DNA sequencing is recommended. Performance in 282 EC cases, of which 99 were POLE-mutated, demonstrated an overall accuracy of 98.6% (95% CI, 97.2 to 99.9), a sensitivity of 95.2% (95% CI, 90.7 to 99.8), and a specificity of 100%. After DNA sequencing of 8.8% equivocal cases, the final sensitivity and specificity were 96.0% (95% CI, 92.1 to 99.8) and 100%. External validation confirmed feasibility and accuracy. CONCLUSION QPOLE is a qPCR assay that is a quick, simple, and reliable alternative for DNA sequencing. QPOLE detects all pathogenic variants in the exonuclease domain of the POLE gene. QPOLE will make low-cost POLE-testing available for all women with EC around the globe.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Global OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207