Molecular marker assessments for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and histoscore (H-score) in the phase III SELECT trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8052 Background: SELECT was a phase III study that investigated whether the addition of cetuximab (C) to pemetrexed (P) improved outcome in previously treated patients (pts) with recurrent or progressive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Clinical results have been reported previously and demonstrated that adding C to P did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). H-score has been reported to be a potential predictor of outcome for C therapy. Prespecified biomarker analyses, including EGFR IHC and H-score, are reported here. Methods: EGFRexpression in tumor tissue was not required for eligibility; however, tissue was collected and analyzed for EGFR expression by IHC using standard methods. In addition, H-score evaluation was performed by trained central pathologists and correlated with clinical outcome using a predefined cutoff for “low” and “high” of <200 and ≥200, respectively. Results: A total of 449 (IHC) and 406 (H-score) pt specimens were evaluable. Demographics for pts with tissue available for EGFR analysis were similar to the overall population. For IHC+ pts (n=396), median PFS for C+P was 3.02 months (95% CI, 2.76–3.45) compared with 2.99 months (95% CI, 2.63–4.14) for P (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83–1.24]; p=.86). For pts with low H-score (N=99 [C+P] and N=111 [P]), median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.8–3.2) with C+P and 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.6–4.1) with P (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.84–1.46]; P=.48); median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.6) with C+P and 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.7–9.2) with P (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.72–1.27]; P=.76). Among pts with high H-scores (N=101 [C+P] and N= 95 [P]), median PFS was 3.2 months (95% CI, 2.7–4.6) with C+P and 3.7 months (95% CI, 1.7–4.5) with P (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.77–1.37]; P=.86); median OS was 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.5–10.9) with C+P and 8.0 months (95% CI, 7.0–9.1) with P (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.86–1.57]; P=.32). Conclusions: EGFR H-score was not predictive of benefit for the addition of C to P in this population of pts with NSCLC. There was also no treatment effect in the IHC+ group. Clinical trial information: NCT00095199.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".