ETMR-28. EVALUATING THERAPEUTIC APPROACHES IN EMBRYONAL TUMORS WITH PLAGL1 AND PLAGL2 AMPLIFICATION AND UNRAVELING MOLECULAR PARALLELS IN EPIGENETICALLY RELATED TUMORS WITH PLAG1-ALTERATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Embryonal tumors with PLAGL1 and PLAGL2 amplification (ET, PLAGL) display substantial clinical heterogeneity regarding applied treatment and outcomes. As a recently-defined entity, the spectrum of tumor-driving PLAG-family alterations is not yet fully elucidated. METHODS We analyzed clinical and MRI data from patients with ET, PLAGL. Second, we identified and analyzed tumors with epigenetic similarities. RESULTS 18 patients with ET, PLAGL revealed diverse clinical behavior. Patients with PLAGL1-amplified tumors (ET, PLAGL1) were older (median 8 years), had a higher rate of complete resections (6/9) and fewer relapses (3/9). Patients with PLAGL2-amplified tumors (ET, PLAGL2) were younger (median 1.9 years), often incompletely resected (6/9) and prone to earlier relapse/progression. Five-year PFS was 89% and 17% (ET, PLAGL1/ET, PLAGL2), with no predictive value of initial surgical extent on PFS/OS. Postoperative treatment included chemotherapy (17/18, various protocols) alone (n=8) or combined with RT (n=9). The three survivors with ET, PLAGL2 underwent induction and high-dose chemotherapy. All five patients with less intensive chemotherapy relapsed. Most first and all subsequent ET, PLAGL2 relapses were distant, questioning the value of initial local radiotherapy. Two ET, PLAGL1 relapses occurred >8 years after diagnosis (one after, one without previous RT). Through methylation-based t-SNE we identified 143 tumors with epigenetic similarities to ET, PLAGL. Filtering revealed a core set of 27 tumors, of which seven displayed evidence of PLAG1-fusion events and one PLAG1-amplification. RNAseq analysis (n=4) revealed distinct gene fusions involving PLAG1, with similar genes upregulated (RET, CYP2W1 and imprinted genes) as in ET, PLAGL. Like ET, PLAGL, PLAG1-fused tumors, occurred in young children with different diagnoses and localizations. CONCLUSION PLAG1-fused tumors are epigenetically similar to ET, PLAGL, show similarities in gene expression, and need to be differentiated from neuroepithelial tumor with PLAGL1-fusion. Future investigations will examine differences in clinical behavior and the utility of PLAG1/L1/L2 IHC for diagnosis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".