MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of matched therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer on progression free survival in the phase I setting.

2018· article· en· W2795493686 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Lam, Allan Andresson Lima Pereira, Jonathan M. Loree, Shailesh Advani, Michael J. Overman, Ann M. Bailey, Amber M. Johnson, Vijaykumar Holla, Nora Sánchez, Yekaterina B. Khotskaya, Funda Meric‐Bernstam, Scott Kopetz, Shubham Pant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineHazard ratioOncologyProgression-free survivalMicrosatellite instabilityPropensity score matchingUnivariate analysisPopulationProportional hazards modelTargeted therapyCancerConfidence intervalMultivariate analysisOverall survivalMicrosatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

619 Background: The benefits of matching targeted treatments to aberrations identified by molecular profiling (MP) is unclear. Outcomes in phase 1 settings have been traditionally reported across tumor histologies. We report outcomes based on a metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) population. Methods: Patients (pts) with mCRC receiving at least one dose of treatment on a phase 1 study were annotated for variants detected by MP. A precision oncology decision support (PODS) team determined variant function and actionability. A matched therapy (MT) was defined as allocation to a novel agent that targeted the aberration or predicted pathway deemed actionable by PODS. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR). Results: A total of 370 patients enrolled onto 467 phase 1 trials were identified from January 2012 to April 2017. 106 enrolments were assigned to MT. Pts with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), BRAFV600E, PIK3CA mutation were more likely to be assigned a MT, while left-sided tumors and RAS mutant patients were less likely to be treated with a MT. Molecularly-targeted regimens (MTR) were utilized more frequently in MT while immune-targeting MTR was more common in non-MT. BRAFV600E mutations and HER2 amplification/overexpression made up 44.3% of MT. There was a significant difference in PFS between the MT vs non-MT group (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83, p = 0.016) in univariate analysis. The 6-month PFS probability was 31% (95% CI; 23-41%) versus 13% (95% CI; 10-17%) respectively. Other significant factors in univariate analysis associated with longer PFS were MSI-H, BRAFV600E and use of a regimen containing cytotoxic chemotherapy while RAS mutations were associated with shorter PFS. In multivariate analysis, after correcting for mutation status, allocation to a MT was associated with improved PFS (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.50-0.99, p = 0.043). Conclusions: Matching clinical trial enrollment to MP based on dedicated decision support is associated with improved outcomes in mCRC patients. The MT strategy is still hampered by a limited number of actionable variants, and is driven by a small number of active MTs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.435 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207