MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Whole-genome sequencing of biliary tract cancer: Uncovering the genomic origins of evolutionary trajectories.

2025· article· en· W4410795426 on OpenAlexafffund
Felix E.G. Beaudry, Nicholas Light, Duhan Yendi, Anudari Zorigtbaatar, Anna Dodd, Roxana Bucur, Julie M. Wilson, Enrique Sanz Garcia, Xin Wang, Erica S. Tsang, Grainne M. O’Kane, Steven Gallinger, Arndt Vogel, Jennifer J. Knox, Faiyaz Notta, Gonzalo Sapisochín, Robert C. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
KeywordsBiliary tract cancerGenomeMedicineCancerGenomicsBiliary tractDNA sequencingGenome instabilityComputational biologyGeneticsBiologyGeneDNAInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4116 Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are rare, highly aggressive malignancies with limited treatment options, leading to consistently poor outcomes. An improved understanding of BTC tumor evolution could inform enhanced screening strategies, identify useful prognostic markers, and discover novel therapeutic targets. Methods: We performed whole genome and transcriptome sequencing (WGTS) at high depth ( > 80X) on a prospective cohort of BTC tumors. After detecting mutations and mutational signatures, we developed two novel methods for driver identification and evolutionary reconstruction. First, we created new oncogene and tumor suppressor-specific models that integrate copy number profiles, structural variant breakends, and expression changes to distinguish structural drivers from neutral chromosomal rearrangements. Second, we applied population genetics techniques to fit demographic models to tumor allele frequencies across 20 paired primary and metastatic samples. Results: We analyzed 130 tumor samples from 110 patients, representing the largest BTC whole-genome cohort to date. We identified hypermutated tumors (50-150 mutations/mb) with distinct etiologies, including mismatch repair deficiency, platinum exposure, tobacco use, and aristolochic acid-related damage, the latter of which was associated with response to immunotherapy. Ourintegrated-driver approach identified an association between selection on RAD23A and an increased structural variant load, resulting in a tandem-duplicator-like mutational phenotype. This also revealed an underappreciated impact of SMAD4 in BTC, which is inactivated through multiple mutation types in 12%. Notably, BAP1 mutations occurred in 24% of cases, including 4% that were inactivated through deletion of the BAP1 promoter that lowered transcript expression, a previously undescribed mechanism. By pairing clinical data to the genomics, we observed a co-occurrence of BAP1 mutations and FGFR2 fusions in small-duct, mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. These mutations were mutually exclusive with TP53 mutations, which were enriched in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Finally, our novel method for subclonal population reconstruction on paired samples illuminated recent tumor evolutionary dynamics and identified an ARID1B fusion with a potential role in metastasis. Conclusions: This study uncovered novel genomic mechanisms underlying the evolutionary origins of BTC beyond those previously identified with exome and panel sequencing, highlighting the value of WGTS. These results highlight the complex genomic heterogeneity of BTC, with potential implications for precision therapy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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