MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885832508 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2018-5530

Abstract 5530: PD-L1 expression in patients screened for phase 2 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma clinical studies (HAWK and CONDOR)

2018· article· en· W2885832508 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Wildsmith, Marietta Scott, Anita Midha, Craig Barker, Jessica Whiteley, M. Ratcliffe, Marlon C. Rebelatto, Jill Walker, Dan P. Zandberg, Lillian L. Siu

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceMedicineBiopsyImmunohistochemistryHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaOncologyInternal medicinePathologyBiomarkerPrimary tumorCancerHead and neck cancerMetastasisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) has proven to be a useful biomarker in determining patient response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1-directed therapeutics in several cancers, including HNSCC. Understanding the impact of sample type and demography on PD-L1 expression will inform the suitability of tumor biopsies for testing. Patients entering the HAWK and CONDOR studies were screened for PD-L1 expression (n=669) in a tumor tissue sample using the Ventana PD-L1 SP263 IHC assay as part of the inclusion criteria. PD-L1 assessment was performed centrally using fully validated test procedures and scoring by trained pathologists. Patients were classified as PD-L1 high if ≥25% of tumor cells (TCs) showed membrane staining. Recently acquired or archival samples ≤3 years old were permitted. Baseline demographic and clinical factors were obtained from the clinical database. Prevalence of PD-L1 expression was assessed according to various clinical and demographic characteristics, sample type (biopsy or resection) and location of biopsy (primary tumor vs metastatic site). Comparisons of PD-L1 expression between subgroups of samples were undertaken using a test for equality of proportions. PD-L1 prevalence was significantly higher in females, patients who never smoked, and those with oral cavity primary. Prevalence was similar in archival and recently acquired samples, by HPV status, and between primary and metastatic sites and for biopsies compared with resections (Table). A separate internal study using 40 pairs of matched samples from a commercial source confirmed strong concordance in PD-L1 status between primary and metastatic sites. These results indicate that various sample types can be reliably used for the determination of TC PD-L1 status in HNSCC. Similar prevalence of PD-L1 expression was found between primary and metastatic lesions and archival compared to recently acquired tissue, with important implications in everyday clinical practice. Table % patients with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥25% (n)P ValueSexMale Female24.5% (534) 36.3% (135)0.00817EthnicityAsian Black/African American White23.8% (21) 20.7% (29) 28.7% (561)0.584Age>65 ≤6524.0% (183) 28.0% (486)0.354Smoking status*Current smoker Ex-smoker Never smoked20.8% (48) 24.1% (245) 50.0% (86)1.27e-05Disease classification*Locally advanced Metastatic28.9% (135) 29.9% (244)0.926HPV status*HPV+ HPV-29.3% (116) 26.9% (242)0.720WHO status at baseline*Normal activity Restricted activity29.6% (115) 29.3% (263)>0.999Site of disease at study entry*Hypopharynx Larynx Oral cavity Oropharynx Other17.3% (52) 20.0% (75) 46.5% (101) 27.2% (147) 25.0% (4)0.000258Site of biopsy/resectionPrimary tumor Metastatic site26.0% (338) 27.8% (331)0.670Sample typeRecently acquired Archival27.0% (285) 26.4% (363)0.941Biopsy Excision/resection25.9% (544) 30.6% (124)0.337*Data available only for randomized patients HPV, human papillomavirus; WHO, World Health Organization Citation Format: Sophie Wildsmith, Marietta Scott, Anita Midha, Craig Barker, Jessica Whiteley, Marianne Ratcliffe, Marlon Rebelatto, Jill Walker, Dan Zandberg, Lillian L. Siu. PD-L1 expression in patients screened for phase 2 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma clinical studies (HAWK and CONDOR) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 5530.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207