MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606696169 · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.17005

Baseline clinical predictors of antitumor response to the PARP inhibitor olaparib in germline BRCA1/2 mutated patients with advanced ovarian cancer

2017· article· en· W2606696169 on OpenAlexaffabout
Saeed Rafii, Charlie Gourley, Rajiv Kumar, Elena Geuna, Joo Ern Ang, Tzyvia Rye, Lee-may Chen, Ronnie Shapira‐Frommer, Michael Friedländer, Ursula A. Matulonis, Jacques De Grève, Amit M. Oza, Susana Banerjee, L Rhoda Molife, Martin Gore, Stan B. Kaye, Timothy A. Yap

Bibliographic record

VenueOncotarget · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlaparibMedicineOncologyInternal medicineOvarian cancerPARP inhibitorResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsBRCA mutationBreast cancerCarboplatinCancerChemotherapyProgressive diseaseCisplatinPoly ADP ribose polymeraseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

// Saeed Rafii 1 , Charlie Gourley 2 , Rajiv Kumar 1 , Elena Geuna 1 , Joo Ern Ang 1 , Tzyvia Rye 2 , Lee-May Chen 3 , Ronnie Shapira-Frommer 4 , Michael Friedlander 5 , Ursula Matulonis 6 , Jacques De Greve 7 , Amit M. Oza 8 , Susana Banerjee 9 , L. Rhoda Molife 1 , Martin E. Gore 9 , Stan B. Kaye 1 and Timothy A. Yap 1 1 Drug Development Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK 2 University of Edinburgh Cancer Research UK Centre, Edinburgh, UK 3 University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA 4 Sheba Medical Centre, Ramat Gan, Israel 5 Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Randwick, Australia 6 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA 7 Oncologisch Centrum UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium 8 Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada 9 Gynae-Oncology Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK Correspondence to: Timothy A. Yap, email: tyap@mdanderson.org Keywords: PARP inhibitor, olaparib, BRCA, ovarian cancer, predictive biomarkers Received: October 25, 2016      Accepted: February 22, 2017      Published: April 10, 2017 ABSTRACT Background: The PARP inhibitor olaparib was recently granted Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval in patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancer. However, antitumor responses are observed in only approximately 40% of patients and the impact of baseline clinical factors on response to treatment remains unclear. Although platinum sensitivity has been suggested as a marker of response to PARP inhibitors, patients with platinum-resistant disease still respond to olaparib. Results: 108 patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancers were included. The interval between the end of the most recent platinum chemotherapy and PARPi (PTPI) was used to predict response to olaparib independent of conventional definition of platinum sensitivity. RECIST complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) rates were 35% in patients with platinum-sensitive versus 13% in platinum-resistant (p<0.005). Independent of platinum sensitivity status, the RECIST CR/PR rates were 42% in patients with PTPI greater than 52 weeks and 18% in patients with PTPI less than 52 weeks (p=0.016). No association was found between baseline clinical factors such as FIGO staging, debulking surgery, BRCA1 versus BRCA2 mutations, prior history of breast cancer and prior chemotherapy for breast cancer, and the response to olaparib. Methods: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective study to investigate the association between baseline clinical characteristics of patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancers from eight different cancer centers and their antitumor response to olaparib. Conclusion: PTPI may be used to refine the prediction of response to PARP inhibition based on the conventional categorization of platinum sensitivity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.358
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 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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncotargetSame topicPARP inhibition in cancer therapyFrench-language works237,207