MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404867964 · doi:10.21037/tlcr-24-913

Correlations between 14-gene RNA-level assay and clinical and molecular features in resectable non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a cross-sectional study

2024· article· en· W4404867964 on OpenAlexaff
Zhicheng Huang, Ming Zhao, Bowen Li, Jianchao Xue, Yadong Wang, Daoyun Wang, Chao Guo, Yang Song, Haochen Li, Xiaoqing Yu, Xinyu Liu, Ruirui Li, Jian Cui, Zhe Feng, Lan Su, Ka Luk Fung, Heqing Xu Rachel, Kakeru Hisakane, Atocha Romero, Shanqing Li, Naixin Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Lung Cancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersPeking Union Medical CollegeChinese Society of Clinical OncologyPeking Union Medical College HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerCross-sectional studyCancerGeneOncologyRNACancer researchBioinformaticsInternal medicinePathologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Accurate risk stratification is essential for optimizing treatment strategies. A 14-gene RNA-level assay of lung cancer, which involves quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) analysis of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples, offers a promising approach. The aim of our study was to assess the relationships between risk stratification, as determined by a 14-gene RNA-level assay, and various clinical and molecular characteristics. Methods: We retrospectively collected the preoperative clinical information and molecular testing information from 102 resectable non-squamous NSCLC patients. The 14-gene RNA-level assay was performed by extracting RNA from FFPE samples, followed by reverse transcription and quantification via quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to assess the expression levels of 11 cancer-associated genes and three housekeeping genes. These gene expression levels were used to calculate a risk score, enabling patient stratification into distinct risk groups. Based on the 14-gene risk stratification, we analyzed the correlations between the clinical and molecular characteristics across the high-, medium-, and low-risk groups. Results: A total of 102 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 55.19 years, 67 (65.7%) patients were female, and 18 (17.6%) had a smoking history. The 14-gene risk stratification classified patients into low-risk (n=63), intermediate-risk (n=25), and high-risk (n=14) groups. No significant differences were observed in baseline demographics between the three risk groups. High-risk patients had significantly higher mean computed tomography (CT) value (P=0.01) and enhanced CT value (P=0.02) compared to low-risk patients. Genomic profiling of 89 patients revealed specific mutations that were significantly associated with the higher-risk groups. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was higher in higher-risk groups (P=0.007). In clinically low-risk patients (n=85) as recognized by the NCCN guidelines, the 14-gene risk stratification model reclassified 30 out from the 85 clinically low-risk patients, with 19 placed in the medium-risk group and 11 in the high-risk group, while the remaining samples were still classified as low-risk. Additionally, we found that three patients who were not recommended for adjuvant therapy by the Multiple-gene INdex to Evaluate the Relative benefit of Various Adjuvant therapies (MINERVA) model were classified as high risk and 13 as intermediate risk. Conclusions: . These insights provide a stronger foundation for integrating molecular risk assessment with clinical and imaging data, offering more comprehensive information to guide more targeted and effective adjuvant therapy strategies in the future management of lung cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.407 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Lung Cancer ResearchSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207