Abstract PO-045: Utility of circulating tumor tissue modified viral (TTMV)-HPV DNA to resolve clinically indeterminate findings in patients following definitive treatment for HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Indeterminate results of clinical or imaging examinations are common across the care continuum, and decisions made can lead to overtreatment and psychological and financial harms for the patient. Additionally, due to the emergence of highly sensitive circulating tumor DNA assays, an indeterminate clinical status can also arise when molecular detection precedes clinical or radiological evidence of recurrence for a period of time. We recently reported >99% negative and >95% positive predictive value of circulating tumor tissue modified viral (TTMV)-HPV DNA for recurrence detection in a large, real-world cohort of patients with HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer. Here we quantified the frequency of clinically indeterminate findings (CIF) in this patient cohort and assessed the prognostic value of TTMV-HPV DNA to resolve these CIF. Methods: This IRB-approved, retrospective observational cohort study included 543 patients across eight U.S. centers who were ≥3 months post-treatment for HPV-driven OPSCC. Patients had one or more TTMV-HPV DNA results (NavDx®, Naveris Laboratories) obtained during surveillance between February 2020 and January 2022 (n=1372 total tests), with mean follow-up time of 24 months (range: 4.9-185). Test results were correlated with physician-reported exam and imaging findings to assess disease status in follow-up. Results: Of the 543 patients, 245 patients (45.1%) had 797 CIF by imaging and/or clinical examination during their surveillance period. Of these 245 patients, 71 patients had 93 CIF that had a coincident TTMV-HPV DNA result (either negative or positive) available within 3 months of the CIF. The TTMV-HPV DNA result was able to correctly predict the presence or absence of recurrence across 91 of the 93 (97.8%) individual CIF. Both incorrectly predicted CIF were in the setting of an undetectable TTMV-HPV DNA result. One patient had their recurrence detected by chest CT 63 days later and had a positive TTMV-HPV DNA test the same day. The second patient had a positive TTMV-HPV DNA test during their subsequent immunotherapy. In contrast to the 45% of patients with CIF as a result of imaging and/or clinical examination, only 18 patients (3.3%) had CIF due to a positive TTMV-HPV DNA result that was not accompanied by clinical evidence of recurrence within 3 months. Importantly, of these 18 patients, 15 patients had confirmed recurrence at a subsequent time point (median time to recurrence: 232 days), leaving only 3 of 543 (0.6%) patients with an ongoing indeterminate recurrence status. Conclusion: Clinical indeterminate findings as a result of imaging and/or clinical examination are common, whereas clinically indeterminate status due to circulating TTMV-HPV DNA testing is rare. Our findings strongly support the clinical utility and value of monitoring circulating TTMV-HPV DNA during post-treatment surveillance to inform interpretation of indeterminate clinical findings. Citation Format: Scott Roof, Glenn Hanna, James Jabalee, Eleni Rettig, Rocco Ferrandino, Sida Chen, Marshall R. Posner, Krzysztof J. Misiukiewicz, Eric M. Genden, Raymond L. Chai, John Sims, Elaine Thrash, Scott Stern, Noah S. Kalman, Sreenija Yarlagadda, Adam Raben, Lydia Clements, Abie Mendelsohn, John M. Kaczmar, Yadav Pandey, Mihir Bhayani, Piyush Gupta, Charlotte Kuperwasser, Catherine Del Vecchio Fitz, Barry M. Berger. Utility of circulating tumor tissue modified viral (TTMV)-HPV DNA to resolve clinically indeterminate findings in patients following definitive treatment for HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-AHNS Head and Neck Cancer Conference: Innovating through Basic, Clinical, and Translational Research; 2023 Jul 7-8; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2023;29(18_Suppl):Abstract nr PO-045.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».