The Clinical Utility of a Tiered Approach to Pediatric Glioma Molecular Characterization for Resource-Limited Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Molecular characterization is key to optimally diagnose and manage cancer. The complexity and cost of routine genomic analysis have unfortunately limited its use and denied many patients access to precision medicine. A possible solution is to rationalize use—creating a tiered approach to testing which uses inexpensive techniques for most patients and limits expensive testing to patients with the highest needs. Here, we tested the utility of this approach to molecularly characterize pediatric glioma in a cost- and time-sensitive manner. METHODS We used a tiered testing pipeline of immunohistochemistry (IHC), customized fusion panels or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and targeted RNA sequencing in pediatric gliomas. Two distinct diagnostic algorithms were used for low- and high-grade gliomas (LGGs and HGGs). The percentage of driver alterations identified, associated testing costs, and turnaround time (TAT) are reported. RESULTS The tiered approach successfully characterized 96% (95 of 99) of gliomas. For 82 LGGs, IHC, targeted fusion panel or FISH, and targeted RNA sequencing solved 35% (29 of 82), 29% (24 of 82), and 30% (25 of 82) of cases, respectively. A total of 64% (53 of 82) of samples were characterized without targeted RNA sequencing. Of 17 HGG samples, 13 were characterized by IHC and four were characterized by targeted RNA sequencing. The average cost per sample was more affordable when using the tiered approach as compared with up-front targeted RNA sequencing in LGG ($405 US dollars [USD] v $745 USD) and HGGs ($282 USD v $745 USD). The average TAT per sample was also shorter using the tiered approach (10 days for LGG, 5 days for HGG v 14 days for targeted RNA sequencing). CONCLUSION Our tiered approach molecularly characterized 96% of samples in a cost- and time-sensitive manner. Such an approach may be feasible in neuro-oncology centers worldwide, particularly in resource-limited settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".