Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34600575›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2021

Application of ensemble clustering and survival tree analysis for identifying prognostic clinicogenomic features in patients with colorectal cancer from the 100,000 Genomes Project.

Yuguo Wei, Nikolaos Papachristou, Stefanie Mueller, Genomics England Research Consortium, Wai Hoong Chang, Alvina G Lai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yuguo WeiInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Nikolaos PapachristouInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Stefanie MuellerInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Genomics England Research Consortium
Wai Hoong ChangInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Alvina G LaiInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK. alvina.lai@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8960-8095
Genomics England · GBUniversity College London · GBHealth Data Research UK · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/M009203/1Medical Research Council MC_PC_14089Medical Research Council MR/M009203/1Wellcome Trust 204841/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to employ ensemble clustering and tree-based risk model approaches to identify interactions between clinicogenomic features for colorectal cancer using the 100,000 Genomes Project.

resultsAmong the 2211 patients with colorectal cancer (mean age of diagnosis: 67.7; 59.7% male), 16.3%, 36.3%, 39.0% and 8.4% had stage 1, 2, 3 and 4 cancers, respectively. Almost every patient had surgery (99.7%), 47.4% had chemotherapy, 7.6% had radiotherapy and 1.4% had immunotherapy. On average, tumour mutational burden (TMB) was 18 mutations/Mb and 34.4%, 31.3% and 25.7% of patients had structural or copy number mutations in KRAS, BRAF and NRAS, respectively. In the fully adjusted Cox model, patients with advanced cancer [stage 3 hazard ratio (HR)  =  3.2; p  <  0.001; stage 4 HR  =  10.2; p  <  0.001] and those who had immunotherapy (HR  =  1.8; p  <  0.04) or radiotherapy (HR  =  1.5; p  <  0.02) treatment had a higher risk of dying. The ensemble clustering approach generated four distinct clusters where patients in cluster 2 had the best survival outcomes (1-year: 98.7%; 2-year: 96.7%; 3-year: 93.0%) while patients in cluster 3 (1-year: 87.9; 2-year: 70.0%; 3-year: 53.1%) had the worst outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log rank test revealed that the clusters were separated into distinct prognostic groups (p  <  0.0001). Survival tree or recursive partitioning analyses were performed to further explore risk groups within each cluster. Among patients in cluster 2, for example, interactions between cancer stage, grade, radiotherapy, TMB, BRAF mutation status were identified. Patients with stage 4 cancer and TMB  ≥  1.6 mutations/Mb had 4 times higher risk of dying relative to the baseline hazard in that cluster.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsRadiation OncologyCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansMalePrognosisSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID34600575
PMCPMC8487486
OpenAlexW3202657672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.