MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Integrated molecular characterization of pediatric soft tissue sarcomas: A report from the COG and CCDI molecular characterization initiative.

2025· article· en· W4410803040 on OpenAlexaff
Sapna Oberoi, Julia Meade, Erin R. Rudzinski, Avery Funkhouser, Catherine E. Cottrell, Douglas S. Hawkins, Javed Khan, Elaine R. Mardis, Nilsa C. Ramirez, Theodore W. Laetsch, Wei Xue, Malcolm A. Smith, Frederic G. Barr, Corinne M. Linardic, Subhashini Jagu, Aaron R. Weiss, Rajkumar Venkatramani, Gregory H. Reaman, John Shern

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
FundersSt. Baldrick's Foundation
KeywordsMedicineSoft tissueCogCharacterization (materials science)PathologyNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10025 Background: The Molecular Characterization Initiative (MCI), a partnership between the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) and the NCI’s Childhood Cancer Data Initiative (CCDI), provides standardized genomic profiling of tumors and germline for subjects with newly diagnosed pediatric soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Here, we report on STS patients <25 years enrolled in MCI from July 2022 to July 2023. Methods: MCI enrollment was offered to COG institutions through APEC14B1 (Project: EveryChild), enabling patient consent, collection of clinical data, and submission of tissue/blood samples. Bio-pathology Center centrally managed sample processing, quality control, and nucleotide extraction, while molecular assays were performed at Nationwide Children’s Hospital’s Institute for Genomic Medicine. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) of tumor/normal, DNA methylation arrays and RNA fusion analysis were conducted in a CLIA-certified environment. Clinical reports, except methylation results, were returned to treating institutions within 21 days, and clinical, sequencing and methylation data were deposited in NCI’s Cancer Data Service. Results: In total, 226 rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS),158 non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS), and 36 non-malignant soft tissue tumors (21 desmoid tumors) from 129 institutions were enrolled. Of 172 RMS patients, 56 were fusion-positive (FP) (46 with FOXO1 fusion and 10 with fusions of other genes). WES of 179 RMS patients identified somatic mutations in 33 genes in 110 patients (61.4%). Most frequently mutated genes included FGFR4 [25/179,14%; FN (fusion-negative) RMS:21%, FP RMS:2%), TP53 (21/179,12%; FN RMS:15%, FP RMS: 7%), and NRAS (18/179, 10%; FN RMS:14%, FP RMS: 3%). Somatic copy number variants (CNVs) were detected in 164/179 (92%) of RMS patients. Germline variants were identified in 18 of 179 RMS (10%; FN RMS:15%, FP RMS: 2%); and most commonly germline altered genes included TP53 (4/179, 2%), APC (2/18, 1%), and ATM (2/179,1%). Among 158 NRSTS > 20 histologies were enrolled, most common being synovial sarcoma (n = 16, 8%). Of 49 patients with an initial diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma, round cell sarcoma, spindle cell sarcoma and sarcoma NOS, 32 underwent fusion testing, and 28 had WES: in 13 (40%) sequencing resulted in specific diagnosis [CIC::DUX4 in 5, BCOR::CCNB3 in 4, NTRK rearrangement in 2, SS18::SSX2 in 1 and EWSR1::ETV1 in 1], and 5 (15%) had rare fusions involving NUTM1 , NSD3 , EGFR and COL1A1 genes;16 exhibited somatic CNVs; 5(18%) had somatic mutations; and 2 (7%) carried germline variants in TP53 and RET genes. Overall, MCI results, as reported by institutions, facilitated clinical trial enrollment in 15%, receipt of targeted therapy outside trials in 17%, and diagnostic refinement in 25% of tested patients, respectively. Conclusions: CCDI’s MCI program provides comprehensive genomic profiling of pediatric and adolescent STS, uncovering distinct somatic genetic alterations, rare fusions, actionable genomic targets and germline variants.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→