MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Germline pathogenic variants in a cohort of individuals with biliary tract cancer.

2025· article· en· W4406869603 on OpenAlexaff
Spring Holter, Ayelet Borgida, Felix E.G. Beaudry, Anna Dodd, Xin Wang, Jennifer J. Knox, Arndt Vogel, Erica S. Tsang, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, Elena Elimova, Carol-Anne Moulton, Trevor Reichman, Chaya Shwaartz, Gonzalo Sapisochín, Steven Gallinger, Robert C. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiliary tract cancerGermlineCohortBiliary tractCancerInternal medicineOncologyGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

559 Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are rare but have been implicated in hereditary cancer conditions such as Lynch syndrome (LS) and BRCA1 and BRCA2. Data from paired somatic and germline genetic testing on BTC have shown that ~5% may be related to germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Identification of these germline pathogenic variants (PV) often provide patients with an opportunity for personalized treatment including platinum-based chemotherapies, PARP inhibitors and/or immunotherapy. Germline testing also provides crucial data to relatives regarding cancer risk and access to increased cancer surveillance and risk-reducing surgeries. Current guidelines recommend germline genetic testing when the likelihood of identifying a PV is >5%. The contribution of germline PV in BTC has not been described in a diverse patient population. Methods: In this prospective clinic-based study, individuals with BTC were referred by their oncologist for genetic counselling and testing. The majority of individuals were enrolled based on participation in the Legresley Biliary Registry, which recruits all individuals with BTC. Blood was sent for germline multi-gene panel testing. Results: Germline genetic testing was performed for 139 individuals. Average age of diagnosis was 57.8 years (range 28-84). The majority of individuals were diagnosed with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) (54.7%), followed by extrahepatic CCA (20.9%) and gallbladder cancer (10.1%). The majority of individuals were male (56.1%). The population was ethnically diverse with 55% European, 24% Asian, 9% Middle Eastern/North African and 6% African. A minority of individuals had a previous cancer (18%) and 24.5% met current provincial eligibility criteria. Germline testing was complete on 136 individuals. 25/136 (14.7%) PV were identified in 20 individuals. 8/136 (5.9%) of the cohort carried PV in genes known to increase the risk for BTC ( BRCA1, BRCA2 and LS genes), 9/136 (6.6%) carried PV in other genes with clinically actionability (e.g. PALB2, ATM ), and 8/136 (5.9%) carried heterozygous PV in genes for recessive diseases. Variants of uncertain significance were identified in 42/136 (30.9%) and negative results were identified in 74/136 (54.4%). Personal and/or family history was not suggestive of the associated cancer condition in 9/16 (56%) of the PV cohort. Tumor profiling by whole genome sequencing on some individuals with PV found corresponding somatic mutational signatures, consistent with variant pathogenicity. Conclusions: Detection rates for PV in a diverse BTC cohort was up to 14.7%, including 5.9% among genes known to increase the risk for BTC. The majority of PV were found in individuals lacking personal and/or family history suggestive of the associated hereditary cancer condition. These results suggest that guidelines should be updated to recommend universal germline genetic testing for individuals with BTC.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.376 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207