MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Tandem duplicator phenotype: A novel targetable subgroup in pancreatic cancer?

2023· article· en· W4379333378 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abdul Rehman Farooq, Amy Zhang, Grainne M. O’Kane, Robert E. Denroche, Gun Ho Jang, Sandra E. Fischer, Anna Dodd, Spring Holter, Julie M. Wilson, Robert C. Grant, Kyaw Lwin Aung, George Zogopoulos, Elena Elimova, Rebecca M. Prince, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, James Biagi, Faiyaz Notta, Steven Gallinger, Jennifer J. Knox, Erica S. Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMount Sinai HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreatic cancerGermline mutationGermlineCancerBreast cancerOncologyInternal medicineSomatic cellCancer researchGeneGeneticsMutationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4161 Background: Validated biomarkers are urgently needed to provide a more precise approach in pancreatic cancer (PDAC). Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is a heterogenous cohort in PDAC and predicts platinum and PARP inhibitor sensitivity. The BRCA-1 genotype associates with distinct tandem duplications (TDs), however non-BRCA 1 TD phenotypes (TDP) have been observed across tumour types and may be associated with perturbations in CDK12, FBXW17, and CCNE1. Here, we characterize the prevalence and outcomes of TDP in a large series of prospectively sequenced PDAC. Methods: Whole-genome sequencing was performed in 191 early stage resected and 275 advanced PDAC cases in the PanCuRx initiative and the COMPASS trial at the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Tumors underwent laser capture enrichment prior to sequencing. TD scores were calculated as previously described by Menghi et al, and HRDetect scores assigned. Samples were classified as classical or basal-like by Moffitt. Outcomes of patients with TDP tumors were evaluated. Tumors that are nonHRD and nonTDP are referred to as typicals. Results: Of 466 cases, 46 were identified as TDP (9.9%; 17 resected, 29 advanced). Subgroups of TDP by etiology included BRCA1 (n=8; 6 germline, 2 somatic), somatic CCNE1 (n=1), and unknown (n=37; no identified alterations in TDP-related genes). Pathogenic germline variants were not found in unique genes other than BRCA1. HRD TDP was associated with a significantly smaller TD size compared to nonHRD TDP (median 12 kb vs. 125 kb, p<0.0001) and median TD load of 114. NonHRD TDP genomes exhibited elevated TD load (median 70 vs. 13, p<0.0001) and HRDetect scores (p<0.0001) compared with typicals. NonHRD TDP was not prognostic in resected PDAC disease (p=0.6361) compared with typicals. We observed a trend towards improved response to 1st-line platinum therapy in nonHRD TDP vs. typicals (p=0.066) for patients with advanced disease. When stratified for only ‘classical’ RNA subtype cases as per Moffitt classification (HRD TDP:2 basal-like, 8 classical, 1 unknown; nonHRD TDP: 9 basal-like, 25 classical, 1 unknown), platinum therapy was correlated with better response in non-HRD TDP vs. typicals (n= 10, 70% ORR, p=0.0108) highlighting the chemoresistance of the basal-like subgroup. Superior survival was not observed in this small cohort. Conclusions: In PDAC, the etiology of nonHRD TDP is unclear but may represent a potential marker for platinum and DNA damage response agents. Further investigation is warranted with a larger sample size.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→