Cited by 353Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies

GATA6 expression distinguishes classical and basal-like subtypes in advanced pancreatic cancer

Open access
O’Kane, Grainne M., Grünwald, Barbara T., Jang, Gun-Ho, Masoomian, Mehdi, Picardo, Sarah, Grant, Robert C., Denroche, Robert E., Zhang, Amy +20 more·2020·Clinical Cancer Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the impact of basal-like and classical subtypes in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and to explore GATA6 expression as a surrogate biomarker. Experimental Design: Within the COMPASS trial, patients proceeding to chemotherapy for advanced PDAC undergo tumor biopsy for RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq). Overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) were stratified by subtypes and according to chemotherapy received. Correlation of GATA6 with the subtypes using gene expression profiling, in situ hybridization (ISH) was explored. Results: Between December 2015 and May 2019, 195 patients (95%) had enough tissue for RNA-seq; 39 (20%) were classified as basal-like and 156 (80%) as classical. RECIST response data were available for 157 patients; 29 basal-like and 128 classical where the ORR was 10% versus 33%, respectively (P = 0.02). In patients with basal-like tumors treated with modified FOLFIRINOX (n = 22), the progression rate was 60% compared with 15% in classical PDAC (P = 0.0002). Median OS in the intention-to-treat population (n = 195) was 9.3 months for classical versus 5.9 months for basal-like PDAC (HR, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32–0.69; P = 0.0001). GATA6 expression by RNA-seq highly correlated with the classifier (P < 0.001) and ISH predicted the subtypes with sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 83%. In a multivariate analysis, GATA6 expression was prognostic (P = 0.02). In exploratory analyses, basal-like tumors, could be identified by keratin 5, were more hypoxic and enriched for a T-cell–inflamed gene expression signature. Conclusions: The basal-like subtype is chemoresistant and can be distinguished from classical PDAC by GATA6 expression. See related commentary by Collisson, p. 4715

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-3724

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patient data suggest that the classical subtype of PDAC responds better to chemotherapy than the poorly prognostic basal-like PDAC subtype.

    “Patient data suggest that the classical subtype of PDAC responds better to chemotherapy than the poorly prognostic basal-like PDAC subtype (44, 58, 59).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O’Kane, G. M., Grünwald, B. T., Jang, G.-H., Masoomian, M., Picardo, S., Grant, R. C., Denroche, R. E., Zhang, A., Wang, Y., Miller, J. K., Lam, B., Krzyzanowski, P. M., Lungu, I. M., Bartlett, J. M. S., Peralta, M., Vyas, F., Khokha, R., Biagi, J., Chadwick, D., Ramotar, S., Hutchinson, S., Dodd, A., Wilson, J. M., Notta, F., Zogopoulos, G., Gallinger, S., Knox, J. J., & Fischer, S. E.
Affiliations
  • 1Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (CA)
  • Kingston General Hospital (CA)
Venue
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2020-03-10
Volume
26
Issue
18
Pages
4901-4910
ISSN
  • 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-3265
OpenAlex
W3011562658
Cited by
352
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 1
FWCI
16.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Clinical Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation (ALTF 116-2018, DEU 1199182 FLF-P)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Keywords
GATA6, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, basal-like subtype, classical subtype, cancer subtyping, chemoresistance, modified FOLFIRINOX, overall survival, prognostic factors, keratin 5, tumor hypoxia, COMPASS trial
MeSH terms
Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, RNA-Seq, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Leucovorin, Female, Fluorouracil, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, Drug Resistance, Neoplasm, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, GATA6 Transcription Factor, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review