MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High epiregulin (<i>EREG</i>) gene expression plus <i>K-ras</i> wild-type (WT) status as predictors of cetuximab benefit in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC): Results from NCIC CTG CO.17—A phase III trial of cetuximab versus best supportive care (BSC)

2009· article· en· W2602090891 on OpenAlexaff
Derek J. Jonker, Christos S. Karapetis, Christopher Harbison, Chris J. O’Callaghan, Dehao Tu, R. J. Simes, L. Xu, Malcolm J. Moore, John Zalcberg, Shirin Khambata‐Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpiregulinCetuximabMedicineInternal medicineOncologyColorectal cancerHazard ratioEpidermal growth factor receptorCancerAmphiregulinConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4016 Background: Cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), improves overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in patients with K-ras WT chemotherapy refractory ACRC. Gene expression of the EGFR ligand epiregulin (EREG) may further predict benefit from cetuximab. Methods: CRC tumour samples were analyzed from a phase III clinical trial of cetuximab plus BSC vs BSC alone (NEJM 2007; 357(20)). EREG gene expression was detected in tumour-derived genomic RNA blinded to clinical outcome by quantitative real time-PCR. Using a pre-specified threshold for “high” EREG derived from a prior study (CA225–045), the predictive effect of (1) high vs low EREG among K-ras WT and (2) high EREG/K-ras WT status (“Combimarker”) versus all other patients on OS and PFS was examined using a Cox model with tests for treatment-biomarker interaction. Results: Both EREG gene expression levels and K-ras mutation status were ascertained in 385 (67%) of the total study population (193 cetuximab, 192 BSC). In the K-ras WT subset, OS was better for cetuximab than BSC among patients with high EREG (HR 0.43; p<0.0001) but not for low EREG patients (HR 0.77, p=0.28). The test for interaction showed a non-significantly larger treatment effect in the high EREG group (HR 0.62, p=0.13). High EREG AND K-ras WT status (“Combimarker”) was present in 139 (36%). Within the Combimarker positive group the median PFS was 5.4 vs 1.9 months (HR, 0.31; p<0.0001), and median OS 9.8 vs 5.1 months (HR, 0.43; p<0.001) in the cetuximab vs BSC arms, respectively. In the rest (n=246, 64%) cetuximab was not associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.82; p=0.12) or OS (HR, 0.90; p=0.45). The test for treatment-Combimarker interaction showed a larger cetuximab effect on OS (HR 0.52; p=0.007) and PFS (HR 0.49; p=0.001) in the Combimarker positive group. Conclusions: In the setting of pre-treated ACRC, patients with both high EREG gene expression and K-ras wild- type status may benefit from cetuximab therapy. Determination of EREG gene expression levels should be prospectively evaluated in patient selection for EGFR targeted therapy. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207