MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393086835 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-937

Abstract 937: Prioritizing treatment targets for an adolescent with metastatic processive malignancy using proteomics and personalized xenograft models within an actionable timeframe

2024· article· en· W4393086835 on OpenAlexaff
Georgina D. Barnabas, Tariq A. Bhat, Verena Goebeler, Pascal Leclair, Nadine Azzam, Nicole Melong, Jason N. Berman, Jennifer A. Chan, Donna L. Senger, Seth J. Parker, Christopher A. Maxwell, Gregor S. D. Reid, Jonathan W. Bush, Caron Strahlendorf, Rebecca Deyell, Chinten James Lim, Philipp F. Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalUniversity of CalgaryChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalignancyMedicineProteomicsComputational biologyBioinformaticsOncologyInternal medicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Translation of precision oncology data into feasible precision therapies for hard-to-cure childhood, adolescent and young adult malignancies remains a significant challenge. Identifying therapeutic targets at the protein and pathway level and demonstrating treatment response in personalized models hold great promise, particularly for combination therapies, but may be considered complex and time consuming. Here, we present the case of an adolescent with metastatic, progressive spindle epithelial tumor with thymus-like differentiation (SETTLE) and evaluate how proteomics combined with rapid patient-derived models can identify treatment options not apparent at the genome or transcript level. Mass spectrometric proteome analysis of macro-dissected tumor and adjacent normal from formalin fixed paraffin embedded sections was completed within two weeks of biopsy and identified key proteins involved in one-carbon metabolism, including SHMT2 and DHFR as possible targets for single or combination therapy. Elevated SHMT2 levels were validated by immunohistochemistry and compared to levels across AYA tumors. Based on the suitability for an innovative therapy trial, we prioritized single-agent sertraline, a commercially available anti-depressant medication that inhibits SHMT2, and confirmed a positive drug response in both chicken chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) and larval zebrafish xenografts generated from the patient. Retrospective expansion in a murine xenograft enabled metabolic tracing on isolated SETTLE- patient-derived xenograft cells using 13C6-glucose confirming SHMT2 activity and response to in vitro treatment. Following failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy and second-line sorafenib treatment, a monotherapy trial of sertraline was initiated by the patient but stopped after 8 weeks after evidence of progressive disease. Possible combination therapies were evaluated further in the patient-derived models. Combining sertraline with the common antibiotic trimethoprim, resulted in enhanced growth inhibition of SETTLE cells in the larval zebrafish xenografts. Significance: Overall, we demonstrate that proteomics and personalized xenograft models may provide supportive pre-clinical data in a clinically meaningful timeframe to support medical decision-making and impact clinical practice. Citation Format: Georgina D. Barnabas, Tariq A. Bhat, Verena Goebeler, Pascal Leclair, Nadine Azzam, Nicole Melong, Jason N. Berman, Jennifer A. Chan, Donna L. Senger, Seth Parker, Christopher A. Maxwell, Gregor S. Reid, Jonathan Bush, Caron Strahlendorf, Rebecca Deyell, C James Lim, Philipp F. Lange. Prioritizing treatment targets for an adolescent with metastatic processive malignancy using proteomics and personalized xenograft models within an actionable timeframe [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 937.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207