Genomic and immune landscape of metastatic melanoma (MM) treated with pembrolizumab (PEM).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
184 Background: Predictive biomarkers for PEM in MM is an active area of research. Methods: INSPIRE (NCT02644369) is a biomarker-driven Princess Margaret Cancer Centre initiative to evaluate genomic and immunologic changes in tumor and blood of patient (pts) treated with PEM at 200 mg IV Q3W. Baseline (BL) and on treatment (post 2-3 doses of PEM) fresh tumor biopsies were collected for DNA/RNA sequencing, immune-profiling, and tumor PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry (QualTek), with longitudinal blood collection for immunophenotyping. Results: As of 9/2017, 11 MM pts (9 cutaneous, 1 choroidal, 1 mucosal) were enrolled. Median treatment duration was 6 months (0.75 – 14.25); 7 pts remain on study. 7/11 (64%) pts had partial response (PR), 3/11 (27%) progressive disease (PD) and 1 was not evaluable (NE) per RECIST 1.1. Based on data for 8 pts (6 PR, 2 PD), higher percentage (%) PD-1 (mean 70 vs 12%), TIGIT (82 vs 43%) and 4-1BB (23 vs 4%) positivity on CD8 T cells in tumor vs blood was seen (all p < 0.05). In BL blood, lower % TIGIT positive CD8 T cells was detected in pts with PR vs PD (38 vs 58%, p < 0.05). T cell profile of 4 pts with paired BL and post PEM samples is shown in Table 1. Mean tumor PD-L1 score was 24% (0 - 90%), with no correlation to PEM response. Genomic analysis on 8 pts (5 PR, 2 PD, 1 NE) found mean tumor mutation burden (TMB) of 538. B2M deletion was seen in 2/2 PD and 0/6 PR pts. Among pts with PRs, 4/6 (67%) had TAP1 and TAP2 amplification post PEM therapy. HLA-A and HLA-B amplifications were each found in 3/6 (50%) PR pts, with only 1 present at BL. TMB was not associated with response to PEM. Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis of MM pts treated with PEM, there was significantly discordant T cell phenotype in tumor vs blood at BL. Our findings suggest B2M deletion to be associated with PEM resistance. The observed development of HLA-A/B and TAP1/2 amplification in 50-67% pts with PR post PEM suggests potential predictive significance, although further validation is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02644369. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".