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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.050
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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