MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract B071: Identifying the clinical utility of CSF as a source of liquid biopsy in pediatric brain tumors

2024· article· en· W4404305902 on OpenAlexaff
Liana Nobre, Mansuba Rana, Yoshiko Nakano, Ian Burns, Robert Siddaway, Richard Yuditskiy, Cyril Li, Andrew Bondoc, Anthony Liu, Uri Taboori, Cynthia Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiquid biopsyPathologyBiopsyBrain biopsyIntensive care medicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pediatric tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) are a leading cause of cancer-related childhood mortality. Along with imaging, it is essential to molecularly characterize tumor tissue for the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of these cancers. Biopsies of deeply-seeded lesions may not be possible or may carry significant risks. On the other hand, liquid biopsy, using cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), provides a minimally invasive alternative to identify and monitor tumor DNA at crucial time points, from diagnosis to follow-up. This allows for molecular diagnosis, identification of therapeutic targets, monitoring response to therapy, and early detection of recurrence or progression. The aim of our study was to assess the practicality and usefulness of liquid biopsies in a diverse group of CNS tumor patients. We used a combination of methods, including a targeted hybridization capture panel and low-pass whole genome sequencing (LP-WGS) based on the sample characteristics. We analyzed a total of 243 CSF samples from patients with CNS tumors including: low-grade glioma (LGG; N=57), high-grade glioma (HGG; N=53), medulloblastoma (MB; N=40), germinoma (CNS-GCT; N=29), and no prior biopsy (N=42). We found somatic mutations in 88% of CSF samples from HGG and 67% from LGG with known tumor DNA variants and sufficient sequencing quality. It's important to note that in LGG patients, samples collected from lumbar puncture were positive only in disseminated cases, while a higher positivity rate was found in cases where CSF was collected from ventricular spaces. Moreover, we observed positive copy number alterations (CNA) in CSF samples collected from HGG, embryonal tumors, and CNS-GCT patients at the time of diagnosis and follow-up with a sensitivity of 64%. Within our sample cohort that had an unknown or query tumor due to no prior biopsy, we were able to detect diagnostic, targetable mutations and/or a positive CNA profile in 30% of cases. This supports the utility of liquid biopsy as a diagnostic tool in in CNS lesions. This tool may also assist in monitoring for relapse in high-grade tumors. For example, in a case study, we were able to detect recurrent MB by indication of a positive CNA profile in keeping with the primary tumor CNV, six years post-surgical resection. In CNS- GCT patients, we found that LP-WGS was highly sensitive at diagnosis as we have observed similar CNV in both CSF and tumor DNA. In summary, the utility of our liquid biopsy platform in the context of CNS cancers is an impactful tool that can aid clinicians in diagnosis, treatment and monitoring disease in a minimally invasive manner. Citation Format: Liana Nobre, Mansuba Rana, Yoshiko Nakano, Ian Burns, Robert Siddaway, Richard Yuditskiy, Cyril Li, Andrew Bondoc, Anthony Liu, Uri Taboori, Cynthia Hawkins. Identifying the clinical utility of CSF as a source of liquid biopsy in pediatric brain tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Liquid Biopsy: From Discovery to Clinical Implementation; 2024 Nov 13-16; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2024;30(21_Suppl):Abstract nr B071.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.316
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→