MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022249592 · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.targ-09-b32

Abstract B32: Retrospective correlative study between EGFRvIII, HPV, p16, c-MET and response to EGFR inhibitors in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN)

2009· article· en· W2022249592 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole G. Chau, Bayardo Perez‐Ordoñez, Katherine Zhang, Nhu‐An Pham, Jcm Ho, Tong Zhang, Lisa Wang, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Lillian L. Siu

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErlotinibInternal medicineOncologyImmunohistochemistryCancerUnivariate analysisHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaHead and neck cancerEpidermal growth factor receptorMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: No validated biomarkers exist to predict the response to EGFR inhibitors in SCCHN. A constitutively activated mutant, EGFRvIII, confers oncogenicity in human cancers and resistance to EGFR blockade, and is detected in 42% of 33 SCCHN tumors (Sok et al. Clin Cancer Res 2006). The aim of this study is to confirm the prevalence of EGFRvIII, HPV, p16, c-MET in R/M SCCHN and evaluate their potential prognostic and predictive role. Materials and Methods: Archival tumor specimens of 53 patients (pts) who were treated in 4 phase I/II trials for R/M SCCHN at Princess Margaret Hospital from 2000–2005 were examined. Two of the 4 trials involved the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib (tumor specimens available in 35 of 48 pts) whereas the remaining 2 trials involved non-EGFR targeted agents (tumor specimens available in 18 of 37 pts). EGFRvIII mutation was determined by quantitative RT-PCR (positive result determined by decreased expression of exon 4 compared with exon 9 of the EGFR gene), presence of HPV DNA by Linear Array Genotyping, p16 and c-MET expression by immunohistochemistry, using p16CINtec (Westborough, MA) and SP44 (Ventana, Tuczon, AZ) antibodies, respectively. Results: Demographics of the 53 pts were: median age 56 (range 15–78), F:M (%) = 23:77, ECOG 0:1:2 (%) = 28:64:8, locoregional recurrence = 85%, metastatic disease = 36%, oropharyngeal primary = 38%. Overall response rate (CR+PR) of the entire cohort to study treatment = 4/53 (7.5%), median TTP = 1.8 months, median OS = 5.9 months. Univariate analyses were significant for erlotinib-treated pts compared to non-erlotinib treated pts in both TTP and OS. EGFRvIII was detected in 22 pts (42%); median fold change was 6.8 (0.56–576.36). The presence of EGFRvIII mutation was associated with better disease control (PR+SD) on univariate analysis (p = 0.01), but no difference was seen between erlotinib-treated versus non-erlortinib treated pts. Median EGFRvIII fold changes were higher for pts with PR+SD than pts with PD (11.11 vs 3.16, p=0.04). The presence of EGFRvIII mutation was not associated with TTP or OS. HPV DNA (16, 6 or 33) was detected in 20 pts (38%), p16 immunostaining was present in 17 pts (32%) and c-MET was highly expressed (IHC score >2) in 31 pts (58%). HPV, p16 and c-MET were not associated with response, TTP or OS. Conclusions: This retrospective study confirms the presence of EGFRvIII mutation in about 40% of SCCHN, and it appears to be a prognostic biomarker associated with better disease control in R/M SCCHN regardless of treatment with erlotinib. Interestingly, the presence of activating mutations conferring a better prognosis has been reported with EGFR mutations in NSCLC (Eberhand et al. J Clin Oncol 2005) and with PIK3CA mutations in breast cancer (Kalinsky et al. Clin Cancer Res 2009). The positive prognostic value of EGFRvIII in R/M SCCHN is unexpected and large prospective studies are required to validate its significance. Citation Information: Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8(12 Suppl):B32.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207