MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053960137 · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.targ-11-a50

Abstract A50: Biomarker analysis of PTEN, targeted oncogenic mutations, and HPV in a phase II trial of the irreversible oral pan-human EGF receptor (HER) inhibitor dacomitinib (D) (PF-299804) as first-line treatment in recurrent and/or metastatic (RM) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).

2011· article· en· W2053960137 on OpenAlexaff
Lillian L. Siu, Ghassan Allo, Gregory R. Pond, Tong Zhang, Jcm Ho, Sebastién J. Hotte, Scott A. Laurie, Simron Singh, Eric Winquist, Stephen Chia, Eric X. Chen, Kelvin Chan, C. Mormont, Susan Quinn, Tao Wang, Ian W. Taylor, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Denis Soulières

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalPfizer (Canada)London Health Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreOntario Clinical Oncology GroupBC Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPTENNeuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homologMedicineBiomarkerCancerGenotypingExact testMutationInternal medicineOncologyGenotypeCancer researchKRASGeneBiologyGeneticsApoptosisPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The pan-HER inhibitor D has demonstrated single-agent activity in a phase II trial of 69 patients (pts) with first-line RM SCCHN, reporting an objective response rate (ORR) of 12.7%, median progression-free survival (PFS) of 12.1 weeks (wks) and median overall survival (OS) of 35.9 wks (Siu et al. ASCO 2011). The identification of biomarkers predictive of sensitivity or resistance is of top priority to assist with pt selection in the development of D in SCCHN. Methods: Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor specimens were used for analysis. PTEN expression was measured by immunohistochemistry and predominant staining intensity of tumor cells was scored from 0 (absent) to 2+ (strong). Tumor DNA was subjected to mutation analysis using the OncoCarta panel 1.0 (238 mutations from 19 genes) on the Sequenom™ MassARRAY platform. Genotyping for HPV16 was performed using RT-PCR. Log-rank test was used to compare OS and PFS and Fisher's exact test was used to compare ORR between biomarker subgroups. Results: Results for PTEN expression, mutation analysis and HPV status were available for 40, 47 and 40 pts respectively. For PTEN, 7 pts (17.5%) scored 0, 30 pts (75%) scored 1+ and 3 pts (7.5%) scored 2+. For mutation analysis, no mutations were identified in 42 pts (89%); 5 pts (11%) had the following mutations: PIK3CA E545K (n=2), NRAS G12C plus PIK3CA E542K (n=1), NRAS G12C plus PIK3CA E545K (n=1), NRAS G12C (n=1). For HPV status, 14 pts (35%) were HPV16+. Summary of the results are displayed in the Table. Although statistical significance was not demonstrated for any of the subgroup analyzes, pts who harbored oncogenic mutations trended to have poorer OS compared to those without (17.6 wks vs 35.9 wks, p=0.20), with no responders among 4 response-evaluable pts. Pts with HPV16+ tumors had lower ORR to D (0% vs 17%, p=0.28) but better OS than those with HPV16-tumors (49.6 wks vs 32.7 wks, p=0.10). Conclusions: The data suggest a possible association between HPV16, PIK3CA and NRAS status and ORR or OS. Since these observations are based on a limited number of samples from a single arm study, a prospective trial designed for biomarker validation will be required to evaluate the strength of these associations and if these are prognostic vs predictive biomarkers. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2011 Nov 12-16; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2011;10(11 Suppl):Abstract nr A50.

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 score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207