MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385963225 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdad071.008

THE CLINICAL AND MOLECULAR LANDSCAPE OF GLIOMAS IN ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS

2023· article· en· W4385963225 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Bennett, Liana Nobre, Jayesh Sheth, Scott Ryall, K Fang, Matthew D. Johnson, Logine Negm, Jiil Chung, Martin Komosa, Newton Nunes, Mary Jane Lim Fat, James Perry, Arjun Sahgal, Jay Detsky, Éric Bouffet, Lili‐Naz Hazrati, Peter B. Dirks, Birgit Ertl‐Wagner, Paul Kongkham, Gelareh Zadeh, Warren Mason, Michael D. Cusimano, Sunit Das, Andrew Gao, Derek S. Tsang, Long Nguyen, Normand Laperrière, Julia Keith, David G. Muñoz, Uri Tabori, Cynthia Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBrain Tumor Funders' Collaborative
KeywordsMedicineGliomaYoung adultOncologyInternal medicineMutationPopulationPediatricsCancer researchGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Molecular alterations in gliomas in adolescents and young adults (AYA) have not been comprehensively described to date. To determine the impact of mutation, we performed a population based study of gliomas in AYA. METHODS: Patients diagnosed from 2000-2019 with glioma between 15-39.9 years were eligible. Comprehensive molecular analysis was performed. Therapeutic and outcome data was collected. For comparison, analysis included patients aged 0-39.9 years. RESULTS: A total of 876 AYA gliomas were included. Genetic alterations were found in 95% of available tumours. Pediatric-type mutations were found in 33% of AYA tumours. The most common paediatric alterations included BRAF p.V600E (11%) and FGFR alterations (7%) while BRAF fusions (4%), H3 p.K27M (4%) and H3.3 p.G34R (1%) were rare. IDH mutation was found in 57% of tumours. Molecular GBM accounted for 7%. Paediatric-type alterations had different outcomes in AYA than children. Ten-year OS of 100%, 90% and 95% was seen for BRAF fused, BRAF-V600E and FGFR-altered AYA low grade glioma (LGG), compared to 14% and 25% for BRAF- V600E and FGFR-altered high grade glioma (HGG) respectively. BRAF and FGFR mutant tumours had higher proportion of HGG versus LGG in AYA compared to children (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.6) while outcome was improved in LGG in AYA compared to children with a 10 year PFS of 76.8% vs 51.6% respectively (p=0.0009) suggesting a transition phase occurring during adolescence and early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: AYA gliomas are enriched for paediatric-type alterations with distinct outcomes. Routine analysis is required given the role for targeted inhibitors.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology AdvancesSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207