MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Bespoke circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis as a predictive biomarker in solid tumor patients (pts) treated with single-agent pembrolizumab (P).

2019· article· en· W2946906089 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Iafolla, Cindy Yang, Scott Dashner, Wei Xu, Aaron R. Hansen, Philippe L. Bédard, Stéphanie Lheureux, Anna Spreafico, Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak, Hsin-Ta Wu, Svetlana Shchegrova, Zhihui Liu, Pamela S. Ohashi, Dax Torti, Maggie C. Louie, Himanshu Sethi, Alexey Aleshin, Lillian L. Siu, Scott V. Bratman, Trevor J. Pugh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicinePembrolizumabOncologyResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsBiomarkerConfidence intervalClinical trialCirculating tumor DNACancerPhases of clinical researchImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2542 Background: Limited data exist in the clonal dynamics of serial ctDNA as a predictive biomarker in advanced solid tumor pts receiving immune checkpoint blockade. Methods: Pts with mixed solid tumors received single agent P (anti-PD-1) 200 mg IV Q3wks in the investigator-initiated phase II INSPIRE trial (NCT02644369). ctDNA was assayed at baseline (B) and start of cycle 3 (C3) using a pt-specific amplicon-based NGS assay (Signatera™). Samples were considered ctDNA positive if ≥2 of 16 pt-specific targets met the qualifying confidence score threshold. Results: Results of 70 pts are presented. Demographics: male 46%; median age=60 yrs (range 21–82); head and neck (20%), triple negative breast (14%) and ovarian (14%) cancers comprised the major malignancies. Median no. of P cycles=4 (range 2–35); follow up was 14m (range 2–29); RECIST responses: CR 2.9% (n=2), PR 17% (n=12), CBR (CR+PR+SD≥6 cycles) 31% (n=22), RECIST/clinical PD (n=43/10; 65%/15%). Median PFS=3.3m and median OS=17.8m. 68/70 pts had ctDNA detected at baseline (median=16/16 variants) demonstrating 97% sensitivity. Table shows correlation of ΔctDNA (ctDNAB compared to ctDNAC3) with clinical efficacy parameters, whereas ctDNAB values did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: A strong correlation exists between ΔctDNA with OS, PFS, CBR and ORR with P, suggesting it is a potential predictive biomarker in pts with mixed solid tumors. 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→