MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403329069 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljae386

Comprehensive mutational profiling identifies new driver events in cutaneous leiomyosarcoma

2024· article· en· W4403329069 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Louise van der Weyden, Martin Del Castillo Velasco‐Herrera, Saamin Cheema, Kim Ping Wong, Jacqueline Marcia Boccacino, Victoria Offord, Alastair Droop, David R A Jones, Ian Vermes, Elizabeth Anderson, Claire Hardy, Nicolas de Saint Aubain, Peter M. Ferguson, Emily L. Clarke, William Merchant, Carolin Mogler, Derek Frew, Paul W. Harms, Carlos Monteagudo, Steven D. Billings, Mark J. Arends, Ingrid Ferreira, Thomas Brenn, David J. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIH Office of the DirectorNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research CouncilNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research Council CanadaCommon FundWellcome Trust
KeywordsCopy number analysisBiologyCopy-number variationPTENGene duplicationComparative genomic hybridizationExome sequencingChromosomal translocationGeneticsChromosomeCancer researchGeneMutationGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous leiomyosarcoma (cLMS) is a rare soft-tissue neoplasm, showing smooth muscle differentiation, that arises from the mesenchymal cells of the dermis. To date, genetic investigation of these tumours has involved studies with small sample sizes and limited analyses that identified recurrent somatic mutations in RB1 and TP53, copy number gain of MYOCD and IGF1R, and copy number loss of PTEN. OBJECTIVES: To better understand the molecular pathogenesis of cLMS, we comprehensively explored the mutational landscape of these rare tumours to identify candidate driver events. METHODS: In this retrospective, multi-institutional study, we performed whole-exome sequencing and RNA sequencing in 38 cases of cLMS. RESULTS: TP53 and RB1 were identified as significantly mutated and thus represent validated driver genes of cLMS. COSMIC mutational signatures SBS7a/b and DBS1 were recurrent; thus, ultraviolet light exposure may be an aetiological factor driving cLMS. Analysis of significantly recurrent somatic copy number alterations, which represent candidate driver events, found focal (< 10 Mb) deletions encompassing TP53 and KDM6B, and amplifications encompassing ZMYM2, MYOCD, MAP2K4 and NCOR1. A larger (24 Mb) recurrent deletion encompassing CYLD was also identified as significant. Significantly recurrent broad copy number alterations, involving at least half of a chromosome arm, included deletions of 6p/q, 10p/q, 11q, 12q, 13q and 16p/q, and amplification of 15q. Notably PTEN is located on 10q, RB1 on 13q and IGFR1 on 15q. Fusion gene analysis identified recurrent CRTC1/CRTC3::MAML2 fusions, as well as many novel fusions in individual samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of the largest number of cases of cLMS to date highlights the importance of large cohort sizes and exploration beyond small targeted gene panels when performing molecular analyses, as it allowed a comprehensive exploration of the mutational landscape of these tumours and identification of novel candidate driver events. It also uniquely afforded the opportunity to compare the molecular phenotype of cLMS with LMS of other tissue types, such as uterine and soft-tissue LMS. Given that molecular profiling has resulted in the development of novel targeted treatment approaches for uterine and soft-tissue LMS, our study now allows the same opportunities to become available for patients with cLMS.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207