MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Successful completion of EGFR/ALK testing in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-sq NSCLC) with the implementation of reflex testing (RT) by pathologists.

2016· article· en· W2591334128 on OpenAlexaff
Ines B. Menjak, Zoe Winterton-Perks, Simon Raphael, Susanna Y. Cheng, Sunil Verma, Ryan L. Freedman, Nevkeet Toor, Joseph Perera, Matthew Anaka, Charles Victor, Parneet Cheema

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreNorth York General HospitalUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentrePediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiomarkerLung cancerOncologyInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)AdenocarcinomaCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

93 Background: EGFR mutation and ALK rearrangement testing is standard in the management of advanced non-sq NSCLC patients (pts). Previously at our centre, EGFR/ALK biomarker testing was requested by medical oncologists (MO). In June 2013 we implemented biomarker RT, defined as pathologists requesting EGFR/ALK at time of diagnosis of non sq-NSCLC irrespective of stage. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that if pathologists requested biomarker testing, appropriate tissue would be preserved and selected for testing, which would improve success rates of biomarker testing. Methods: Retrospective review of advanced non-sq NSCLC pts seen by MO at Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre from March 2010 to April 2014. Pt and EGFR/ALK test characteristics were compared before and after RT using Chi-square tests of association. Time outcomes were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Of the 310 pts included, median age was 68, 44% female, 47% Caucasian, 93% adenocarcinoma, 22% EGFR+, 1% ALK+ and 84% either presented with or developed stage IV. Samples tested for EGFR and ALK were respectively: 53%, 51% core biopsies; 25%, 32% surgical resections; 20%, 16% cytology. The number of biomarker tests across all stages increased with RT (EGFR 70% vs 95%, p < 0.001 / ALK 44% vs 83%, p < 0.001). RT improved the rate of successfully completed tests (EGFR 86% vs 96%, p = 0.04 / ALK 83% vs 97%, p = 0.04). The remainder of tests were unsuccessful due to inconclusive results (EGFR 9% vs 4%, p = 0.25 / ALK 7% vs 2%, p = 0.25), insufficient tissue (EGFR 3% vs 0%, p = 0.33 / ALK 10% vs 0%, p = 0.03) or cancellation due to appropriate tissue not being sent from holding lab to testing lab (EGFR 2% vs 0, p = NS / ALK 0% vs 2%, p = NS). From core biopsies, there was trend to improved success of EGFR testing with RT (82% vs 97%, p = 0.06) and significant improvement of ALK testing (82% vs 100%, p = 0.04), with no impact on success from cytology samples. Rebiopsy rate for biomarker testing was low in both cohorts. Turnaround time for EGFR testing decreased [19 days (IQR 15-25) vs 17 days (IQR 12-21), p = 0.02]; ALK was unchanged. Conclusions: Implementation of RT improved successful completion of EGFR/ALK testing.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.391 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207