17 CHROMOSOME 1P LOSS AND 1Q GAIN ARE HIGHLY PROGNOSTIC AND CAN INFORM WHO GRADING OF MENINGIOMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada Travel Award Recipient The CNS WHO grade of meningioma was updated in 2021 to include rare molecular features, namely homozygous deletions of CDKN2A or CDKN2B and TERT promotor mutations. Previous work including the recent cIMPACT-NOW statement have discussed the potential value of including chromosomal copy number alterations to help refine the current grading system. Objective: To identify chromosomal copy number alterations which could be used to improve the current CNS WHO grading of meningioma. Design: In this cohort study, patients with surgically treated meningioma were followed until recurrence or progression of disease or death. Chromosomal copy number alterations were then correlated with progression-free survival to identify new outcome biomarkers. Results: Using a cohort of 1964 meningiomas, we demonstrated that loss of chromosome 1p in CNS WHO grade 1 meningiomas was associated with significantly worse outcomes compared to cases without loss of 1p (median PFS 5.83 [95% CI 4.36-Inf] vs 34.54 [16.01-Inf] years, log-rank p < 0.001). Outcome of patients with CNS WHO grade 1 tumours with loss of chromosome 1p was comparable to CNS WHO grade 2 tumours (median PFS 4.48 [4.09-5.18] years). Combined loss of chromosome 1p and gain of chromosome 1q portended outcomes which were highly concordant with CNS WHO grade 3 cases regardless of initial grade (median PFS 2.23 [1.28-Inf] years for WHO grade 1 and 1.90 [1.23-2.25] years for WHO grade 2, compared to 2.27 [1.68-3.05] years in all WHO grade 3 cases). Conclusions: Our findings highlight a role for cytogenetic profiling in the next iteration of CNS WHO grading, with a specific focus on chromosome 1p loss and 1q gain. We advocate for chromosome 1p loss in addition to 22q loss being added as a criterion for a CNS WHO grade of 2 and addition of 1q gain as a criterion for a CNS WHO grade of 3.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".