MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393576666 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.01.587600

Study Design and Interim Analysis of the Cancer Lifetime Assessment Screening Study in Canines (CLASSiC): The First Prospective Cancer Screening Study in Dogs Using Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Liquid Biopsy

2024· preprint· en· W4393576666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andi Flory, Suzanne Gray, Lisa M. McLennan, Jill M. Rafalko, Maggie A. Marshall, Kate Wotrang, Marissa Kroll, Brian K. Flesner, Allison L. O’Kell, Todd A. Cohen, Carlos A. Ruiz-Pérez, Emily Sandford, Ana G. Clavere-Graciette, Ashley Phelps‐Dunn, Rita Motalli-Pepio, Prachi Nakashe, Mary Ann Cristobal, Phadre Anderson, Susan C. Hicks, John A. Tynan, Kristina M. Kruglyak, Dana W.Y. Tsui, Daniel S. Grosu

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerProspective cohort studyInterimInterim analysisInternal medicineBiopsyLiquid biopsyClinical trialConcordanceIncidence (geometry)Oncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objective The Cancer Lifetime Assessment Screening Study in Canines (CLASSiC) is a prospective, longitudinal cancer screening study, in which enrolled dogs are screened for cancer with physical exams and next-generation sequencing-based liquid biopsy testing on a serial basis. The goals of the first interim analysis, presented here, are to assess the benefits of using the OncoK9® liquid biopsy test as a cancer screening tool in a prospective clinical setting, and to demonstrate test performance for cancer detection, including preclinical detection. Subjects 726 presumably cancer-free client-owned dogs were prospectively enrolled in the study across 24 clinical sites in the US and Canada. Most subjects were at high risk of cancer at the time of enrollment based on age and/or breed. 419 dogs that were enrolled for at least one year and had at least two cancer screening study visits, or that had received a definitive or presumptive diagnosis of cancer up to the time of the interim analysis, were included in the analysis. Methods Clinical data and a blood sample were collected at each study visit (once or twice per year and when cancer was clinically suspected). Cell-free DNA extracted from plasma was tested by OncoK9® using next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology. Results 417 dogs were eligible for inclusion in the interim analysis and had classifiable outcomes, with a mean on-study duration of 422 days. Of these, 51 dogs were newly diagnosed with cancer (37 definitive, 14 presumptive), translating to a 12% (51/417) observed incidence over the study period; the liver, skin, bone, heart, spleen, lung, and lymph node(s) were the most common anatomic locations for disease. The prospectively observed sensitivity (detection rate) of the test was 56.9% (95% CI: 42.3-70.4%) with a specificity of 98.9% (95% CI: 97.0-99.6%). The prospectively observed positive predictive value was 87.9% (95% CI: 70.9-96.0%) and the negative predictive value was 94.3% (95% CI: 91.3-96.3%). NGS-based liquid biopsy doubled the overall number of cancer cases detected in this study population (from 25 to 51); remarkably, the detection rate for preclinical cancer was increased 4.6-fold from 12% (6/51) by routine care alone to 55% (28/51) by combining routine care with OncoK9® testing. Clinical Relevance CLASSiC is the first study to prospectively document the incidence of cancer in a predominantly high-risk canine population, and to prospectively demonstrate that the addition of NGS-based cancer screening to regularly scheduled wellness visits has the potential to substantially increase preclinical cancer detection in this population.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→