MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A prospective study to compare qPCR to IHC and FISH for the detection of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusions in FFPE specimens from NSCLC patients (<i>PCRTALK</i>).

2014· article· en· W2626656823 on OpenAlexaffabout
David R. Hout, John Handshoe, Brock L. Schweitzer, Stephan W. Morris, Aly Karsan, Helena Daudt, David L. Saltman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer FoundationUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrizotinibAnaplastic lymphoma kinaseMedicineLung cancerOncologyALK inhibitorInternal medicineCeritinibCancerROS1AlectinibClinical trialPathologyAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS11136 Background: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related deaths in North America. A number of pharmaceutical firms currently have therapies that target ALK-driven lung cancers in development, with the first-in-class FDA-approved ALK inhibitor Xalkori (crizotinib, Pfizer) demonstrating excellent anti-tumor responses without significant toxicities. There is now substantial interest in ensuring the accurate identification of those NSCLC patients who harbor ALK fusions. The ALK qPCR assay is a quantitative real-time PCR assay that offers high throughput, 24-48 hour TAT, and easily interpretable results. We are performing a clinical diagnostic trial, PCRTALK (PCR tumor ALK), with the primary objective of this trial being to unequivocally demonstrate the performance of the ALK qPCR assayagainst current ALK testing modalities in screening FFPE lung cancer biopsy specimens. The study is recruiting multiple clinical centers throughout Canada for patient enrollment. Once PCRTALK has been completed, our goal is to accomplish the following: (1) the trial will provide clinically relevant data on which types of lung cancer biopsies (bronchoscopy, FNA, CNB, pleural fluid thoracentesis) provide sufficient tissue for the different modalities of ALK testing and report on the number of cases rejected for ALK testing by IHC and FISH due to insufficient tissue; and (2) provide therapeutic outcome data for cases with discordant ALK diagnostic results. A second arm of the study is to conduct a correlative study analyzing both matched FFPE and blood collected from NSCLC patients using various non-invasive methodologies. Methods: The study will proceed according to the following work flow: (1) ALK IHC (ALK IHC-5A4, Leica Biosystems) conducted by BCCA laboratories; (2) 72 individual ALK IHC 5A4-positives and 72 ALK IHC 5A4-negatives selected according to their respective IHC scores and reflexed to 3 - 5; (3) ALK FISH (Abbott Diagnostics) performed on all 144 specimens; (4) The ALK qPCR assay performed on all 144 specimens; and (5) Sanger and/or NGS to determine true status. Initial PCRTALK clinical trial data will be presented together with conclusions based on the results. Clinical trial information: NCT02010047.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.389 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→