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 OpenAlex
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

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
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