MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4396591725 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-ps06-04

Abstract PS06-04: The prognostic and predictive impact of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) dynamics in patients with metastatic Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) on olaparib based therapy: Results from Cohort E of the PlasmaMATCH trial

2024· article· en· W4396591725 sur OpenAlexaff
Iseult Browne, Javier Pascual, Rosalind Cutts, Belinda Kingston, Sarah Hrebien, Lucy Kilburn, Alex Pearson, Laura Moretti, Andrew Wardley, Iain R. Macpherson, Richard D. Baird, Rebecca Roylance, Iris Faull, Kimberly C. Banks, Isaac García-Murillas, Judith M. Bliss, Alistair Ring, Nicholas C. Turner

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Établissements canadiensInstitute of Cancer Research
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOlaparibMedicineTriple-negative breast cancerOncologyBreast cancerInternal medicineCancerMetastatic breast cancerCohortDNABiologyPoly ADP ribose polymerase

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Early changes in ctDNA levels, ctDNA dynamics, may help identify which patients are responding to therapy earlier than imaging. Few studies have assessed ctDNA dynamics during PARP inhibitor therapy. Here we report paired baseline and early on treatment ctDNA analysis from cohort E of plasmaMATCH, that recruited patients with TNBC to treatment with olaparib (PARP inhibitor) plus ceralasertib (ATR inhibitor). Methods: The plasmaMATCH trial assessed the ability of ctDNA testing to allocate patients to mutation matched treatment cohorts (A-D). Patients with TNBC, and without mutations matching cohorts B-D, were enrolled on cohort E. Samples were collected for ctDNA analysis pre-treatment at cycle 1-day1 (C1D1) and cycle 2-day 1 (C2D1). A minimum of 14 days of treatment in the first cycle was required for inclusion in this analysis. Samples were sequenced using error-corrected gene targeted panels (Guardant360, or GuardantOMNI, Guardant Health). Circulating DNA ratio (CDR) was calculated as the ratio of C2D1 ctDNA level to C1D1, pre-specified using the weighted mean of variant allele fractions (AF) of clonal mutations at C1D1, excluding variants with AF < 0.3%, and variants in genes frequently mutated in clonal haematopoesis (GNAS, JAK2, IDH1, IDH2 and ATM). The optimal cut-point for predicting progression free survival (PFS) was assessed as the cut-point with the highest Harrell’s C-index. Results: Of the 75 patients that were enrolled into cohort E, 53 patients had samples sent for paired C1D1-C2D1 ctDNA sequencing, 2 failed sequencing, and all 51 (68%) patients had detectable ctDNA at C1D1. The ctDNA analysis set was representative of the overall enrolled population. The optimal ctDNA dynamics C-index cut-point for predicting PFS was 0 (undetectable ctDNA at C2D1). Median PFS with ctDNA CDR >0 (detectable ctDNA at C2D1) was 4.3 months (95% CI 2.4-5.8), and with undetectable ctDNA was 12 months (95% CI 8-NA) (HR 4.02, 95% CI 1.22-13.23, p=0.01). Splitting patients by median CDR was not predictive (HR=0.98; 95%CI: 0.52-1.82, p=0.94). Confirmed objective response rate was 85.7% (42.1-99.6) in patients with undetectable ctDNA at C2D1, and with detectable ctDNA was 11.4% (3.8-24.6) (OR 4.02, 95% CI 1.22-13.23, p=0.01). Of the 7 patients with undetectable ctDNA at C2D1, one had a BRCA2 germline mutation, and all other patients were wildtype for BRCA1/2 mutations in tumour and germline. All patients with undetectable ctDNA and BRCA1/2 wildtype had a confirmed response.In cohorts A-D (mutation targeted therapies, in predominantly ER positive cancer), the optimal ctDNA dynamics C-index CDR cut-point was 0.165 (HR 3.44, 95%CI: 2.06-5.75, p< 0.001), with median CDR cut-point also highly predictive (HR=2.14, 95%CI:1.36-3.36, p=0.001). Undetectable ctDNA was also strongly predictive (HR=4.41; 95%CI: 1.97-9.87, p< 0.001) in cohort A-D.In cohort E, a significant association was found between baseline ctDNA and PFS, with an optimal C-index cutpoint of 6.81% (HR=3.02, 95% CI: 1.39-6.56, p=0.001). Median PFS for baseline ctDNA ≤ 6.81% was 10.2 months (95% CI 3.7-17.2), and for baseline ctDNA >6.81% was 4.4 months (95% CI 2.2-5.5). Conclusions: ‘Clearance’ of ctDNA to become undetectable at C2D1 identified sporadic TNBC patients who benefited from olaparib and ceralasertib. Although ‘clearance’ of ctDNA was associated with good outcome on olaparib plus ceralasertib, median CDR was not predictive of treatment benefit. This contrasts the results of ctDNA dynamic assessment of cohort A-D, where median CDR was highly predictive of treatment benefit. ctDNA dynamic assessment may differ between mutation targeted therapies (cohorts A-D) that induce cell-cycle arrest, and PARP inhibitors (cohort E) that inhibit DNA repair mechanisms. Implementing ctDNA dynamics into clinical trials and care may require distinct analysis for different therapies. Citation Format: Iseult Browne, Javier Pascual, Rosalind Cutts, Belinda Kingston, Sarah Hrebien, Lucy Kilburn, Alex Pearson, Laura Moretti, Andrew Wardley, Iain Macpherson, Richard Baird, Rebecca Roylance, Iris Faull, Kimberly C Banks, Isaac Garcia-Murillas, Judith Bliss, Alistair Ring, Nicholas Turner. The prognostic and predictive impact of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) dynamics in patients with metastatic Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) on olaparib based therapy: Results from Cohort E of the PlasmaMATCH trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PS06-04.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,326
Écart entre enseignants0,302 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Research→Même sujetCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→Travaux en français237 207→