MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399787702 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noae064.031

BIOM-12. LIQUID BIOPSIES IN CNS TUMORS: A COMBINED APPROACH TO PROFILING CSF

2024· article· en· W4399787702 on OpenAlexaff
Liana Nobre, Yoshiko Nakano, Ian Burns, Monique Johnson, Javal Sheth, Mansuba Rana, Richard Yuditskiy, Logine Negm, Michal Zápotocký, Ana Guerreiro Stücklin, Craig Erker, Chantel Cacciotti, Adam Fleming, Sylvia Cheng, Annie Huang, Andrew Bondoc, M Lim Fat, Anirban Das, Vanan Magimairajan, J Bennet, Robert Siddaway, Uri Tabori, Cynthia Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaSunnybrook HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)Liquid biopsyPathologyMedicineCancer researchComputer scienceInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In precision medicine, molecular profiling of pediatric tumors is crucial for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic decision-making. Traditional biopsy methods, often invasive, have inherent risks and may not capture a tumor’s heterogeneity. Liquid biopsy, however, offers a minimally invasive and comprehensive alternative. We demonstrate its utility in diagnosing and monitoring brain tumors using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), where conventional cfDNA plasma analysis has shown low sensitivity. Through digital droplet PCR, we analyzed 23 plasma samples from patients with BRAFV600E or H3K27M gliomas, detecting H3K27M in a single case. Conversely, CSF samples revealed 8 positives out of 9 for these mutations, underscoring CSF’s diagnostic value. We advanced our methodology by developing a 21-gene hybrid-capture panel paired with low-pass whole-genome sequencing to pinpoint copy number variations. In our reference sample set, the panel achieved a detection limit with variant allele frequencies as low as 0.5%. With 10ng of cfDNA, we reached 83% sensitivity and 100% specificity, which increased to 100% sensitivity with a 30ng input. Using this assay, we profiled 141 CSF samples from 119 patients, achieving 70% positivity rate in active disease cases in a validation cohort—ranging from 50% in low-grade gliomas to 84% in high-grade gliomas and 75% in medulloblastomas. Intriguingly, of 14 queried tumor samples lacking biopsy confirmation, half showed positive ctDNA results using the panel and/or low-pass whole-genome sequencing. This approach allowed for differential diagnoses in suspected medulloblastoma relapses, tailored therapeutic interventions based on CSF profiles, and effective treatment response monitoring. In summary, our integrated liquid biopsy strategy showcases a powerful, clinically applicable tool that significantly enhances patient care in pediatric neuro-oncology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→