MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013456934 · doi:10.3747/co.19.862

EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Mutation Testing in the Treatment of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2012· article· en· W2013456934 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, George Chong, Diana N. Ionescu, Anthony M. Magliocco, Alan Spatz, Ming‐Sound Tsao, X. Weng, Sean Young, T. Zhang, Denis Soulières

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryBC Cancer AgencyJewish General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGefitinibErlotinibExonLung cancerMedicineConcordanceMutationEpidermal growth factor receptorTyrosine kinaseCancer researchOncologyCancerInternal medicineGeneBiologyGeneticsReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) tumours with activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (efgr) tyrosine kinase are highly sensitized to the effects of oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as gefitinib and erlotinib, suggesting the possibility of targeted treatment of nsclc based on EFGR mutation status. However, no standardized method exists for assessing the EGFR mutation status of tumours. Also, it is not known if available methods are feasible for routine screening. To address that question, we conducted a validation study of methods used for detecting EGFR mutations in exons 19 and 21 at molecular laboratories located in five specialized Canadian cancer centres. METHODS: The screening methods were first optimized using cell lines harbouring the mutations in question. A validation phase using anonymized patient samples followed. RESULTS: The methods used at the sites were highly specific and sensitive in detecting both mutations in cell-line dna (specificity of 100% and sensitivity of at least 1% across all centres). In the validation phase, we observed excellent concordance between the laboratories for detecting mutations in the patient samples. Concordant results were obtained in 26 of 30 samples (approximately 87%). In general, the samples for which results were discordant were also less optimal, containing small amounts of tumour. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that currently available methods are capable of reliably detecting exon 19 and exon 21 mutations of EFGR in tumour samples (provided that sufficient tumour material is available) and that routine screening for those mutations is feasible in clinical practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207