MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Genomic alterations in intraductal prostate cancer: Insights from the Genomic Umbrella Neoadjuvant study (GUNS) in high-risk localized disease.

2025· article· en· W4407701519 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rui Bernardino, Joshua Scurll, Htoo Zarni Oo, Lucia Nappi, Alexander W. Wyatt, Amina Zoubeidi, Doron Berlin, Tiiu Sildva, Jessica Cockburn, Theodorus van der Kwast, Martin Gleave, Neil Fleshner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerDiseaseProstateCancerOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

417 Background: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC) is an aggressive histological variant of prostate cancer, characterized by the presence of malignant cells within the prostatic ducts. Retrospective studies have shown IDC linked to higher tumor grades and odds of lymphatic metastasis and worse oncological outcomes. In patient derived xerograph models, IDC can persist after castration, with a subpopulation of castrate tolerant cells able to regenerate upon testosterone restoration. This suggests that IDC contributes to therapy resistance and highlights the need to understand molecular alterations of IDC. This study aims to evaluate genomic profiles of these tumors in the GUNS trial. Methods: From 9/2021 to 8/2024, GUNS enrolled 95 patients in Canada. Diagnostic biopsies underwent Tempus’ CLIA-certified 648-gene panel DNA sequencing. A total of 93 patients were evaluable for genomic alterations. Of those, 81 additionally had immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining for PTEN. All biopsy specimens were centrally reviewed by TvK. Associations between IDC and genomic alterations or PTEN IHC staining (positive vs. negative/heterogeneous) were assessed by Fisher’s exact test, and the false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Only genomic alterations annotated as biologically significant by Tempus were considered for analysis. Results: Of the 93 evaluable patients, 36 (39%) had IDC on biopsy. PTEN IHC status showed a significant association with IDC status, with negative or heterogeneous PTEN IHC staining being more prevalent among IDC-positive cases (p = 0.002; FDR q = 0.05). Specifically, PTEN IHC staining was negative/heterogeneous in 15/32 (47%) IDC-positive cases but only 7/49 (14%) IDC-negative cases. Genomic PTEN (22% vs. 7%) and TP53 (19% vs. 9%) alterations were also more common in IDC-positive cases than IDC-negative cases, although these trends were not statistically significant. Conversely, CDKN1B was exclusively altered in IDC-negative cases (0% vs. 9%), and BRCA2 alterations (germline or somatic) were also more frequent in IDC-negative cases (3% vs 11%), but these observations were also not statistically significant. Relatively low frequencies of genomic alterations were likely impediments to statistical significance, warranting larger sample sizes to assess these trends. Conclusions: Negative or heterogeneous PTEN IHC staining was more common in IDC-positive cases, consistent with the known association between PTEN loss and aggressive disease. PTEN IHC status, along with other genetic markers, may help to define subgroups within prostate cancer that differ in their underlying biology and response to neoadjuvant treatment. This highlights the importance of integrating molecular and histological data to better understand prostate cancer progression and to tailor therapeutic approaches.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→