MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2740653063 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2017-1774

Abstract 1774: Progression-free survival curves suggest a dichotomous determinant of PD-L1 inhibitor efficacy

2017· article· en· W2740653063 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Stewart, Dominick Bossé, Stephanie Yasmin Brule, Andrew Robinson, Michael Ong, John Hilton

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineMedicineOncologyPopulationLung cancerProgression-free survivalEpidermal growth factor receptorArea under the curveReceiver operating characteristicTyrosine-kinase inhibitorProportional hazards modelCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: PD-L1 expression varies across tumors but does not accurately predict PD-L1 inhibitor efficacy. Some negative tumors respond and some positive tumors fail. PD-L1 inhibitor progression-free survival (PFS) curve shape in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggests that a dichotomous (present vs absent) factor might drive sensitivity rather than it being driven by a continuous variable like PD-L1 expression. PFS curves may follow first order kinetics, with a straight line if log % PFS is plotted vs time. If the population had 2 distinct subgroups with differing rates of progression then one would expect an inflection point on the log-linear curve, and the curve would fit a 2-phase decay model in nonlinear regression analysis (NLRA). A more homogeneous population would not fit a 2-phase model. Methods: We used arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/app/ to digitize published PFS curves, then GraphPad Prism5 for 2-phase NLRA, with the constraints Y0=100, plateau=0. To generate standardized 2-phase curves, we utilized 1) unselected NSCLC patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) where we expected a high proportion of curves to fit a 2-phase model as only some patients would have a sensitizing EGFR mutation; 2) NSCLC EGFR mutant and wild type (WT) patients treated with EGFR TKIs, and patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, taxanes or placebo/best supportive care (BSC), where we expected a lower proportion of curves to fit 2-phase models; 3) PD-L1 PFS curves in NSCLC and other tumor types. Results: With EGFR TKIs in unselected patients, 58 of 79 (73%) curves were fit by 2-phase models, vs 5 of 37 (14%) with EGFR TKIs in EGFR mutant patients (p<0.0001), 13 of 27 (48%) in EGFR WT patients (p<0.02), 4 of 37 (11%) with platinum-based therapy (p<0.0001), 15 of 47 (32%) with a taxane (p<0.0001), and 6 of 22 (27%) with placebo/BSC (p=0.0001). With PD-L1 inhibitors in NSCLC, 30 of 32 (94%) curves fit 2-phase models (p<0.0001 vs each of EGFR TKIs in EGFR mutants, EGFR WTs, platinum and taxane chemotherapy and placebo/BSC). In other tumor types, 27 of 32 (84%) PD-L1 curves fit 2-phase models. Conclusions: Most PD-L1 inhibitor PFS curves fit a 2-phase model. This is similar to what we observed with EGFR TKIs in unselected patients and different from EGFR TKIs in EGFR mutant and WT patients, and from chemotherapy or placebo/BSC. This leads us to hypothesize the existence of a dichotomous (present vs absent) factor such as a gene mutation, deletion or silencing that sensitizes tumors to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. If found, such a dichotomous factor could prove to be a highly useful biomarker that could permit accurate prediction of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor efficacy. Since PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor efficacy is higher in tumors with high PD-L1 expression, any sensitizing dichotomous factor might also drive PD-L1 expression. Citation Format: David J. Stewart, Dominick Bosse, Stephanie Brule, Andrew G. Robinson, Michael Ong, John F. Hilton. Progression-free survival curves suggest a dichotomous determinant of PD-L1 inhibitor efficacy [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 1774. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-1774

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)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.411 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→