MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114446999 · doi:10.1200/jco.2012.48.1390

Pooled Analysis of the Prognostic and Predictive Effects of <i>KRAS</i> Mutation Status and <i>KRAS</i> Mutation Subtype in Early-Stage Resected Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Four Trials of Adjuvant Chemotherapy

2013· article· en· W2114446999 on OpenAlexafffund
Frances A. Shepherd, Caroline Domerg, Pierre Hainaut, Pasi A. Jänne, Jean‐Pierre Pignon, Stephen L. Graziano, Jean-Yves Douillard, E. Brambilla, Thierry Le Chevalier, Lesley Seymour, Abderrahmane Bourredjem, Gwénaël Le Teuff, Robert Pirker, Martin Filipits, Rafael Rosell, Robert A. Kratzke, Bizhan Bandarchi, Xiaoli Ma, Marzia Capelletti, Jean‐Charles Soria, Ming‐Sound Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteInstitut National Du CancerNational Cancer InstituteLigue Contre le CancerSanofi
KeywordsKRASMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineMutationOncologyProportional hazards modelCancerLung cancerStage (stratigraphy)GastroenterologyGeneticsColorectal cancerGeneBiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We undertook this analysis of KRAS mutation in four trials of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) versus observation (OBS) to clarify the prognostic/predictive roles of KRAS in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: KRAS mutation was determined in blinded fashion. Exploratory analyses were performed to characterize relationships between mutation status and subtype and survival outcomes using a multivariable Cox model. RESULTS: Among 1,543 patients (763 OBS, 780 ACT), 300 had KRAS mutations (codon 12, n = 275; codon 13, n = 24; codon 14, n = 1). In OBS patients, there was no prognostic difference for overall survival for codon-12 (mutation v wild type [WT] hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.40) or codon-13 (HR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.47 to 2.17) mutations. No significant benefit from ACT was observed for WT-KRAS (ACT v OBS HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04; P = .15) or codon-12 mutations (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.35; P = .77); with codon-13 mutations, ACT was deleterious (HR = 5.78; 95% CI, 2.06 to 16.2; P < .001; interaction P = .002). There was no prognostic effect for specific codon-12 amino acid substitution. The effect of ACT was variable among patients with codon-12 mutations: G12A or G12R (HR = 0.66; P = .48), G12C or G12V (HR = 0.94; P = .77) and G12D or G12S (HR = 1.39; P = .48; comparison of four HRs, including WT, interaction P = .76). OBS patients with KRAS-mutated tumors were more likely to develop second primary cancers (HR = 2.76, 95% CI, 1.34 to 5.70; P = .005) but not ACT patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.75; P = .40; interaction, P = .02). CONCLUSION: KRAS mutation status is not significantly prognostic. The potential interaction in patients with codon-13 mutations requires validation. At this time, KRAS status cannot be recommended to select patients with NSCLC for ACT.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations292
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207