1p and/or 19q polysomy is an adverse prognostic factor in oligodendrogliomas, and easy to detect by automated FISH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the feasibility of automated analysis by FISH technique in the determination of the 1p and/or 19q polysomy in oligodendrogliomas (OGs) and to explore its prognostic value. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective monocentric series of 145 consecutive OGs with IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion. For all cases, automated FISH analyses were performed to determine 1p and/or 19q polysomy status and results were compared to manual analysis to verify the concordance of the two methods. Polysomic status was then compared to clinical and histological data, the CDKN2A deletion status when available, event free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Our study comprised 79 grade 2 OGs (O2) and 66 grade 3 OGs (O3). Polysomy of 1p and/or 19q was observed in 58 cases (40% of whole cohort) with a significant enrichment in the high grade cohort (59% versus 24%; p < 0,0001) and recurrent cases (55%). A majority of polysomic cases were copolysomic for 1p and 19q (75% of the polysomic cohort) rather than 1p or 19q single polysomy (21% and 4% respectively). Polysomy was correlated to high grade histological criteria of high mitotic and Mib1 proliferative indices (p = 0,002 and p = 0,0005 respectively) and to vascular proliferation (p = 0,0003). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed a significant correlation betwen polysomy and a shorter EFS and OS (p = 0,02 and p = 0,016 respectively). Concordance between manual and automated analysis was almost perfect for both 1p and 19q analysis (96 and 98% respectively, κ = 0,92 and 0,95 respectively). Automated analysis revealed that the large majority of polysomic signatures are represented by a small number of R/G signals (mainly 7 signatures) allowing a very easy implementation to pre-existent FISH platforms analysis software. CONCLUSION: 1p and/ or 19q polysomy status represent a prognostic factor in OGs and can be easily determined by automated analysis. Our study supports the clinical interest to determine the polysomic status in all primitive or recurrent OGs and underline the benefits of automated analysis which offers a better archive storage and facilitates multicentric comparison.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".