MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538407824 · doi:10.1186/s13073-016-0364-2

Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype-matched clinical trials: the Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial

2016· article· en· W2538407824 on OpenAlexafffund
Tracy Stockley, Amit M. Oza, Hal K. Berman, Natasha B. Leighl, Jennifer J. Knox, Frances A. Shepherd, Eric X. Chen, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Neesha C. Dhani, Anthony M. Joshua, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Stefano Serra, Blaise Clarke, Michael H. A. Roehrl, Tong Zhang, Mahadeo A. Sukhai, Nadia Califaretti, Mateya Trinkaus, Patricia Shaw, Theodorus van der Kwast, Lisa Wang, Carl Virtanen, Raymond H. Kim, Albiruni R. Abdul Razak, Aaron R. Hansen, Celeste Yu, Trevor J. Pugh, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Lillian L. Siu, Philippe L. Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMarkham Stouffville HospitalMcMaster UniversityGrand River HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CarePrincess Margaret Cancer FoundationCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)GenotypeMedicineClinical trialHuman geneticsBioinformaticsComputational biologyInternal medicineOncologyMedical physicsBiologyGeneticsComputer scienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of molecular profiling of tumor tissue to guide treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors is unknown. Our objectives were to evaluate the frequency of genomic alterations, clinical "actionability" of somatic variants, enrollment in mutation-targeted or other clinical trials, and outcome of molecular profiling for advanced solid tumor patients at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM). METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors aged ≥18 years, good performance status, and archival tumor tissue available were prospectively consented. DNA from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was tested using a MALDI-TOF MS hotspot panel or a targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panel. Somatic variants were classified according to clinical actionability and an annotated report included in the electronic medical record. Oncologists were provided with summary tables of their patients' molecular profiling results and available mutation-specific clinical trials. Enrolment in genotype-matched versus genotype-unmatched clinical trials following release of profiling results and response by RECIST v1.1 criteria were evaluated. RESULTS: From March 2012 to July 2014, 1893 patients were enrolled and 1640 tested. After a median follow-up of 18 months, 245 patients (15 %) who were tested were subsequently treated on 277 therapeutic clinical trials, including 84 patients (5 %) on 89 genotype-matched trials. The overall response rate was higher in patients treated on genotype-matched trials (19 %) compared with genotype-unmatched trials (9 %; p < 0.026). In a multi-variable model, trial matching by genotype (p = 0.021) and female gender (p = 0.034) were the only factors associated with increased likelihood of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Few advanced solid tumor patients enrolled in a prospective institutional molecular profiling trial were treated subsequently on genotype-matched therapeutic trials. In this non-randomized comparison, genotype-enrichment of early phase clinical trials was associated with an increased objective tumor response rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01505400 (date of registration 4 January 2012).

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations285
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome MedicineSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207