MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386863242 · doi:10.1101/2023.09.15.557847

The clinical, genomic, and transcriptomic landscape of BRAF mutant cancers

2023· preprint· en· W4386863242 on OpenAlexafffund
Suzanne Kazandjian, Emmanuelle Rousselle, Matthew Dankner, David W. Cescon, Anna Spreafico, Kim Ma, Petr Kavan, Gerald Batist, April A. N. Rose

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéEMD SeronoFondation de l'Hôpital général juifJewish General HospitalAdvanced Accelerator ApplicationsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome CanadaAstraZeneca CanadaAstraZenecaAmerican Society of Clinical OncologyPfizerConquer Cancer Foundation
KeywordsWnt signaling pathwayTranscriptomeCancerMelanomaCancer researchBiologyMutantMutationMedicineGeneGeneticsOncologyInternal medicineGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background BRAF mutations are classified into 4 molecularly distinct groups, and Class 1 (V600) mutant tumors are treated with targeted therapies. Effective treatment has not been established for Class 2/3 or BRAF Fusions. We investigated whether BRAF mutation class differed according to clinical, genomic, and transcriptomic variables in cancer patients. Methods Using the AACR GENIE (v.12) cancer database, the distribution of BRAF mutation class in adult cancer patients was analyzed according to sex, age, primary race, and tumor type. Genomic alteration data and transcriptomic analysis was performed using The Cancer Genome Atlas. Results BRAF mutations were identified in 9515 (6.2%) samples among 153,834, with melanoma (31%), CRC (20.7%), and NSCLC (13.9%) being the most frequent cancer types. Class 1 harbored co-mutations outside of the MAPK pathway (TERT, RFN43) vs Class 2/3 mutations (RAS, NF1). Across all tumour types, Class 2/3 were enriched for alterations in genes involved in UV response and WNT/β-catenin. Pathway analysis revealed enrichment of WNT/β-catenin and Hedgehog signaling in non-V600 mutated CRC. Males had a higher proportion of Class 3 mutations vs. females (17.4% vs 12.3% q = 0.003). Non-V600 mutations were generally more common in older patients (aged 60+) vs younger (38% vs 15% p<0.0001), except in CRC (15% vs 30% q = 0.0001). Black race was associated with non-V600 BRAF alterations (OR: 1.58; p<0.0001). Conclusions Class 2/3 BRAF are more present in Black, male patients with co-mutations outside of the MAPK pathway, likely requiring additional oncogenic input for tumorigenesis. Improving access to NGS and trial enrollment will help development of targeted therapies for non-V600 BRAF mutations. Statement of Translational Relevance BRAF mutations are classified in 4 categories based on molecular characteristics, but only Class 1 BRAF V600 have effective targeted treatment strategies. With increasing access to next-generation sequencing, oncologists are more frequently uncovering non-V600 BRAF mutations, where there remains a scarcity of effective therapies. Responsiveness to MAPK pathway inhibitors differs according to BRAF mutation class and primary tumor type. For this reason, we sought to determine whether key demographic, genomic, and transcriptomic differences existed between classes. This cross-sectional study analyzes the largest dataset of BRAF-mutated cancers to date. Our findings propose insights to optimize clinical trial design and patient selection in the pursuit of developing effective treatment strategies for patients whose tumors harbor non-V600 BRAF mutations. This study also offers insights into the potential of targeting alternative pathways in addition to the MAPK pathway as part of combinatorial treatment strategies.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysFrench-language works237,207