MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract A002-PR011: Precision Diagnosis in High-Risk Pediatric Oncology through Integrated Whole Genome, Transcriptome, and Epigenome Profiling

2025· article· en· W4414494210 on OpenAlexaff
Chelsea Mayoh, Pamela Ajuyah, Ann Altekoester, Frank Alvaro, Paulette Barahona, Noemi Fuentes-Bolanos, Susan Corley, Lujing Cui, Ben Curran, Kimberly Dias, David D. Eisenstat, Paul G. Ekert, Raelene Endersby, Christian Fares, Jamie I. Fletcher, Emmy D.G. Fleuren, Andrew J. Gifford, Nicholas G. Gottardo, Jordan R. Hansford, Sophie Jessop, Sam El-Kamand, Seong-Lin Khaw, Rishi S. Kotecha, Loretta M. S. Lau, Angela Lin, Richard B. Lock, Neevika Manoharan, Glenn M. Marshall, Marion K. Mateos, Geoffrey McCowage, Andrew S. Moore, Sumanth Nagabushan, Wayne Nicholls, Natacha Omer, Peter Priestley, Dong-Anh Khuong Quang, Megan Rumford, Akanksha Senapati, Charles Shale, Ashleigh Sullivan, Patricia A. Sullivan, Kamile Taouk, Toby N. Trahair, Marie Wong, Paul Wood, David S. Ziegler, Vanessa Tyrrell, Michelle Haber, Mark J. Cowley

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermlineEpigenomePrecision medicinePediatric cancerCopy-number variationGermline mutationRhabdomyosarcomaChildhood cancerDNA methylation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: The ZERO Childhood Cancer Program is Australia’s national precision medicine initiative for children with cancer. Through rapid integration of tumor and germline whole genome sequencing (WGS), RNA-seq, and methylome analysis, ZERO aims to determine the precise molecular diagnosis for every child and inform precision-guided treatment. We present updated findings from 764 consecutively enrolled high-risk patients, highlighting the diagnostic utility of multi-omics profiling and its unique insights into pediatric cancer biology. Methods: Tumor and germline WGS, RNA-seq, methylome and microbial analysis were performed using in-house Graphene, Carbonite, Methyliser and Micrite platforms. CNS tumors and sarcomas were classified using the MNP methylation classifier. Leukemias were classified using RNA-seq classifiers: LSC17, ALLSorts, and in-house tools. Integrated data were reviewed via the ZeroDash platform, with molecular reports issued within 4 weeks and therapeutic recommendations within 8 weeks following national tumor board discussion. Results: We identified genetic driver alterations in 95% of cases, including 912 SNVs/indels, 738 copy number variants, and 401 structural variants (SVs). Canonical drivers such as EWSR1 and PAX3 fusions in sarcomas, and TP53 and H3-3A mutations in CNS tumors were among the most frequently altered genes. Strikingly, 29% of reportable SVs were intragenic, disrupting gene structure & typically missed by clinical testing. RNA-seq validated >90% of these, revealing novel isoforms, aberrant splicing, or loss of expression. Among 78 complex SVs, including genome shattering events, multi-hop rearrangements, and paralogous gene fusions, RNA-seq resolved their transcriptional consequences, supporting assessment of pathogenicity and identified 10 missed by WGS. The MNP classifier provided a matching diagnosis in 93% of CNS tumors and 82% of sarcomas, resolving diagnostically ambiguous cases. RNA-based classifiers refined subtype classification in >75% of leukemias. In AML, stratification using LSC17 scores identifies an ultra-high-risk group with a hazard ratio of 0.18 compared to the least adverse group, indicating they are five times more likely to die. Among the 40 tumors with no reportable findings, 30 had low (<20%) tumor purity. Interestingly, 13% of these cases showed evidence of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection, suggesting a possible viral etiology in a subset of undiagnosed tumors. Retrospective review of the 10 high purity samples identified the driver in 9 leaving only a germ cell tumour without a known driver. Conclusions: Multi-omics profiling provides a detailed molecular view of high-risk childhood cancers, with each platform offering complementary insights. WGS captures genomic alterations, RNA-seq detects all mutation types and informs pathogenicity, and methylome analysis supports classification. Together, these approaches maximize diagnostic yield, refine risk stratification, and guide treatment. This strategy has enabled ZERO’s expansion to all children with cancer across Australia. Citation Format: Chelsea Mayoh, Pamela Ajuyah, Ann Altekoester, Frank Alvaro, Paulette Barahona, Noemi Fuentes-Bolanos, Susan Corley, Lujing Cui, Ben Curran, Kimberly Dias, David D Eisenstat, Paul G Ekert, Raylene Endersby, Christian Fares, Jamie Fletcher, Emmy DG Fleuren, Andrew Gifford, Nicholas G Gottardo, Jordan Hansford, Sophie Jessop, Sam El-Kamand, Seong-Lin Khaw, Rishi S Kotecha, Loretta MS Lau, Angela Lin, Richard B Lock, Neevika Manoharan, Glenn M Marshall, Marion Mateos, Geoffrey McCowage, Andrew S Moore, Sumanth Nagabushan, Wayne Nicholls, Natacha Omer, Luciana Dalla Pozza, Peter Priestley, Dong-Anh Khuong Quang, Megan Rumford, Akanksha Senapati, Charles Shale, Ashleigh Sullivan, Patricia Sullivan, Kamile Taouk, Toby N Trahair, Marie Wong-Erasmus, Paul J Wood, David S Ziegler, Vanessa Tyrrell, Michelle Haber, Mark J Cowley. Precision Diagnosis in High-Risk Pediatric Oncology through Integrated Whole Genome, Transcriptome, and Epigenome Profiling [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Discovery and Innovation in Pediatric Cancer— From Biology to Breakthrough Therapies; 2025 Sep 25-28; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(18_Suppl_2):Abstract nr A002-PR011.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207