Molecular Landscape of<i>ERBB2/ERBB3</i>Mutated Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite growing therapeutic relevance of ERBB2 amplifications in colorectal cancer (CRC), little is known about ERBB2/ERBB3 mutations. We aimed to characterize these subsets of CRC. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 419 CRC patients from MD Anderson (MDACC) and 619 patients from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS)/Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) with tissue sequencing, clinicopathologic, mutational, and consensus molecular subtype (CMS) profiles of ERBB2/ERBB3 mutant patients. A third cohort of 1623 CRC patients with ctDNA assays characterized the ctDNA profile of ERBB2 mutants. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: ERBB2 mutations occurred in 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4% to 6.4%), 5.8% (95% CI = 4.1% to 8.0%), and 5.1% (95% CI = 4.0% to 6.2%) of MDACC, NHS/HPFS, and ctDNA patients, respectively. ERBB3 mutations occurred in 5.7% (95% CI = 3.7% to 8.4%, 95% CI = 4.0% to 7.8%) of patients in both tissue cohorts. Age, stage, and tumor location were not associated with either mutation. Microsatellite instability (MSI) was associated with ERBB2 (odds ratio [OR] = 5.98, 95% CI = 2.47 to 14.49, P < .001; OR = 5.13, 95% CI = 2.38 to 11.05, P < .001) and ERBB3 mutations (OR = 3.48, 95% CI = 1.51 to 8.02, P = .002; OR = 3.40, 95% CI = 1.05 to 10.96, P = .03) in both tissue cohorts. Neither gene was associated with TP53, APC, KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF mutations in tissue. However, PIK3CA mutations were strongly associated with ERBB2 mutations in all three cohorts (OR = 3.68, 95% CI = 1.83 to 7.41, P = .001; OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.11 to 4.58, P = .02; OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.25 to 3.58, P = .004) and ERBB3 mutations in the MDACC cohort (OR = 13.26, 95% CI = 5.27 to 33.33, P < .001). ERBB2 (P = 0.08) and ERBB3 (P = .008) mutations were associated with CMS1 subtype. ERBB2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.23 to 4.03, P = .009), but not ERBB3 (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.73, P = .73), mutations were associated with worse overall survival. Conclusions: MSI and PIK3CA mutations are associated with ERBB2/ERBB3 mutations. Co-occurring PIK3CA mutations may represent a second hit to oncogenic signaling that needs consideration when targeting ERBB2/ERBB3.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".