Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34157173›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2021

Identification of Somatic Gene Signatures in Circulating Cell-Free DNA Associated with Disease Progression in Metastatic Prostate Cancer by a Novel Machine Learning Platform.

Edwin Lin, Andrew W Hahn, Roberto H Nussenzveig, Sergiusz Wesolowski, Nicolas Sayegh, Benjamin L Maughan, Taylor McFarland, Nityam Rathi, Deepika Sirohi, Guru Sonpavde and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Detection ofBiomedicines · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Edwin Lin *Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Andrew W Hahn *Division of Cancer Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Roberto H Nussenzveig *Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Sergiusz WesolowskiDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Nicolas SayeghDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Benjamin L MaughanDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Taylor McFarlandDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2227-717X
Nityam RathiDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Deepika SirohiDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Guru SonpavdeDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Umang SwamiDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Manish KohliDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Thereasa RichGuardant Health, Inc, Redwood City, California, USA.
Oliver SartorDepartment of Oncology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Mark YandellDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Neeraj AgarwalDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1076-0428
University of Utah · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USGuardant (United States) · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USTulane University · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
UTAH REGIONAL CANCER CENTERP30CA042014 · NCI · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI KATHARINE S ULLMAN · 1986 to 2026
$72.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P30 CA042014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProgression from metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) to a castration-resistant (mCRPC) state heralds the lethal phenotype of prostate cancer. Identifying genomic alterations associated with mCRPC may help find new targets for drug development. In the majority of patients, obtaining a tumor biopsy is challenging because of the predominance of bone-only metastasis. In this study, we hypothesize that machine learning (ML) algorithms can identify clinically relevant patterns of genomic alterations (GAs) that distinguish mCRPC from mCSPC, as assessed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA). EXPERIMENTAL

designRetrospective clinical data from men with metastatic prostate cancer were collected. Men with NGS of cfDNA performed at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory at time of diagnosis of mCSPC or mCRPC were included. A combination of supervised and unsupervised ML algorithms was used to obtain biologically interpretable, potentially actionable insights into genomic signatures that distinguish mCRPC from mCSPC.

resultsGAs that distinguish patients with mCRPC (n = 187) from patients with mCSPC (n = 154) (positive predictive value = 94%, specificity = 91%) were identified using supervised ML algorithms. These GAs, primarily amplifications, corresponded to androgen receptor, Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling, G1/S cell cycle, and receptor tyrosine kinases. We also identified recurrent patterns of gene- and pathway-level alterations associated with mCRPC by using Bayesian networks, an unsupervised machine learning algorithm.

conclusionThese results provide clinical evidence that progression from mCSPC to mCRPC is associated with stereotyped concomitant gain-of-function aberrations in these pathways. Furthermore, detection of these aberrations in cfDNA may overcome the challenges associated with obtaining tumor bone biopsies and allow contemporary investigation of combinatorial therapies that target these aberrations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The progression from castration-sensitive to castration-resistant prostate cancer is characterized by worse prognosis and there is a pressing need for targeted drugs to prevent or delay this transition. This study used machine learning algorithms to examine the cell-free DNA of patients to identify alterations to specific pathways and genes associated with progression. Detection of these alterations in cell-free DNA may overcome the challenges associated with obtaining tumor bone biopsies and allow contemporary investigation of combinatorial therapies that target these aberrations.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantBayes TheoremBiomarkers, TumorDisease ProgressionHumansMachine LearningMaleNeoplasm MetastasisPhosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorCell-Free Nucleic AcidsPhosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesCastration-resistantCastration-sensitiveCell-free DNAGenomicsMachine learningMetastatic prostate cancerNext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID34157173
PMCPMC8417886
OpenAlexW3173490520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.