MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383313483 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1208244

Molecular profiling of solid tumors by next-generation sequencing: an experience from a clinical laboratory

2023· article· en· W4383313483 on OpenAlexaff
Pratibha Bhai, Jacob P. Turowec, Stephanie Santos, Jennifer Kerkhof, L. Pickard, Aidin Foroutan, Daniel Breadner, Matthew J. Cecchini, Michael A. Levy, Alan Stuart, Stephen Welch, Christopher J. Howlett, Hanxin Lin, Bekim Sadiković

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)DNA sequencingComputational biologySolid tumorMedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceBiologyInternal medicineGeneticsDNACancerOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Personalized targeted therapies have transformed management of several solid tumors. Timely and accurate detection of clinically relevant genetic variants in tumor is central to the implementation of molecular targeted therapies. To facilitate precise molecular testing in solid tumors, targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays have emerged as a valuable tool. In this study, we provide an overview of the technical validation, diagnostic yields, and spectrum of variants observed in 3,164 solid tumor samples that were tested as part of the standard clinical diagnostic assessment in an academic healthcare institution over a period of 2 years. Methods: The Ion Ampliseq™ Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 assay (ThermoFisher) that targets ~2,800 COSMIC mutations from 50 oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes was validated, and a total of 3,164 tumor DNA samples were tested in 2 years. A total of 500 tumor samples were tested by the comprehensive panel containing all the 50 genes. Other samples, including 1,375 lung cancer, 692 colon cancer, 462 melanoma, and 135 brain cancer, were tested by tumor-specific targeted subpanels including a few clinically actionable genes. Results: Of 3,164 patient samples, 2,016 (63.7%) tested positive for at least one clinically relevant variant. Of 500 samples tested by a comprehensive panel, 290 had a clinically relevant variant with TP53, KRAS, and PIK3CA being the most frequently mutated genes. The diagnostic yields in major tumor types were as follows: breast (58.4%), colorectal (77.6%), lung (60.4%), pancreatic (84.6%), endometrial (72.4%), ovary (57.1%), and thyroid (73.9%). Tumor-specific targeted subpanels also demonstrated high diagnostic yields: lung (69%), colon (61.2%), melanoma (69.7%), and brain (20.7%). Co-occurrence of mutations in more than one gene was frequently observed. Conclusions: The findings of our study demonstrate the feasibility of integrating an NGS-based gene panel screen as part of a standard diagnostic protocol for solid tumor assessment. High diagnostic rates enable significant clinical impact including improved diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical management in patients with solid tumors.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207