MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract LB-103: Landscape of somatic ERBB2 Mutations: Findings from AACR GENIE and comparison to ongoing ERBB2 mutant basket study

2017· article· en· W2740470992 on OpenAlexaff
Alison M. Schram, Helen Won, Fabrice André, Mónica Arnedos, F. Meric Bernstam, Philippe L. Bédard, Kenna Shaw, Hugo M. Horlings, Christine Micheel, Ben Ho Park, Grace Mann, Alshad S. Lalani, Lillian M. Smyth, David B. Solit, Deborah Schrag, Mia Levy, Barrett J. Rollins, Mark J. Routbort, Charles L. Sawyers, Eva M. Lepisto, Michael F. Berger, David M. Hyman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissense mutationCohortNeratinibIndelCancerMedicineBreast cancerOncologyExomeColorectal cancerGermline mutationInternal medicineMutationGeneticsExome sequencingBiologyGeneSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: AACR GENIE is an international data-sharing project that aggregates clinical-grade cancer genomic data. As a demonstration of utility, we evaluated the landscape of ERBB2 mutations in the first 18,486 patients included in this registry and compared it to the first 100 patients enrolled in an ongoing international Phase 2 SUMMIT ‘basket’ study of the pan-HER inhibitor neratinib in ERBB2 mutant solid tumors (NCT01953926). Results: ERBB2 mutations were identified in 2.8% (519/18,486) of patients in the GENIE cohort and observed at all participating centers. In total, there were 482 missense, 66 indels, 19 truncating mutations, and 14 structural variants. A total of 263 unique missense mutations were observed including 12 at previously identified hotspots which accounted for 69.2% of all missense mutations. 35 unique cancer types were represented. The tumor types with the highest proportion of ERBB2 mutations were bladder (12.8%, 82/641), breast (3.9%, 87/2230), colorectal (3.3%, 70/2102), and NSCLC (3%, 90/3006). Among patients with copy number data available (91%) 11% had concurrent ERBB2 amplification, most often in breast cancer. The most frequently observed alterations in ERBB2, adjusted for differing exon coverage between panels, was S310F/Y in 0.46% of the GENIE cohort (12.6% of samples with ERBB2 alterations), Y772_A775dup in 0.21% (6.9%), R678Q in 0.17% (4.5%), L755S in 0.16% (5.2%), V777L in 0.12% (3.8%), and V842I in 0.09% (3.1%). The distribution of specific ERBB2 variants differed significantly by tumor type with exon 20 insertions being most common in NSCLC (44.4%, 40/90), L755S (18.9%, 11/92) in breast, S310F/Y (26.9%, 28/104) in bladder, and V842I (13.9%, 10/72) in colorectal cancer. Structural variants included intragenic deletions (n=4) and fusions involving various partners including GRB7 (n=2), and one each of C1orf87, PPIL6, HEXIM2, THRA, ASIC2, BCA3, WIPF2. The frequencies of ERBB2 mutant cancer types observed in the GENIE cohort were generally comparable to those enrolled to the neratinib basket study including NSCLC (17 vs 22%, respectively), breast (16.4 vs 24%), bladder (15.5 vs 14%), colorectal (13.2 vs 17%), and endometrial (4.2 vs 6%). At the variant level, S310F/Y was less prevalent in GENIE compared to the neratinib study (12.6 vs 24%) while all other mutations were generally similar including L755S (5.2 vs 9%), R678Q (4.5 vs 2%), Y772_A775dup (6.9 vs 13%), V777L (3.8 vs 9%), and V842I (3.1 vs 6%). Conclusion: GENIE confirms that a diversity of ERBB2 mutations are prevalent across a variety of tumor types in patients with advanced cancer. The genomic landscape of ERBB2 mutations was largely similar in the population based GENIE cohort and the neratinib SUMMIT study, providing the first direct evidence that basket study enrollment accurately reflects the true landscape of the target alteration. Citation Format: Alison Schram, Helen H. Won, Fabrice Andre, Monica Arnedos, Funda Meric - Bernstam, Philippe L. Bedard, Kenna R. Shaw, Hugo Horlings, Christine Micheel, Ben Ho Park, Grace Mann, Alshad S. Lalani, Lillian Smyth, David B. Solit, Deborah Schrag, Mia A. Levy, Barrett J. Rollins, Mark Routbort, Charles L. Sawyers, Eva Lepisto, Michael F. Berger, David M. Hyman, on behalf of the AACR Project GENIE Consortium. Landscape of somatic ERBB2 Mutations: Findings from AACR GENIE and comparison to ongoing ERBB2 mutant basket study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-103. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-LB-103

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)0.001
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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207