MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Identification and use of treatment (tx) options in patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) after comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP): A real-world study.

2019· article· en· W2947788704 on OpenAlexaff
Céline Mascaux, Lukas Bubendorf, Fabrice Barlési, James W. Clendening, Qing Zhang, Kieran Mace, Ádám Gondos, Stefan Foser, Lisa I. Wang, Luis Paz‐Ares

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerClinical trialInternal medicineProfiling (computer programming)Oncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9076 Background: The number of targeted txs for NSCLC is increasing. By analyzing numerous molecular alterations, CGP may open more targeted tx options than single biomarker testing. Methods: We analyzed a database linking Flatiron Health electronic health record-based clinical and Foundation Medicine, Inc. (FMI) CGP genomic alteration (GA) data in US pts diagnosed from 1/2011 with aNSCLC, primarily from community practices, and with follow-up through 6/2018. We examined the prevalence and distribution of genomic findings, and agreement between tx received and CGP-directed tx options (approved for aNSCLC/other tumors) on the FMI report as a measure of clinical utility. The latter was evaluated in a subset of pts with sufficient tx and follow-up data after FMI testing. Results: Among 5112 FMI-tested pts (first test observed 8/2012), 49% had their FMI test before starting any line of tx, 97% had ≥ 1 GA with known/likely function (median = 5), and 85% had ≥ 1 potential tx option (52% had ≥ 1 option for aNSCLC and 33% had ≥ 1 for another tumor type only). In 1366 pts evaluable for tx agreement after FMI testing, 572 (42%) received a tx listed on the FMI report and 111 (8%) were enrolled in clinical trials. Pts with a tx option approved for aNSCLC were more likely to have a tx agreeing with an option on the FMI report (67% of 754) v pts with a tx option approved in another tumor type only (8% of 612). Among the 1366 pts, 14% had EGFR/ALK/ROS1/BRAF (EARB) tx options only. The remaining 1170 had a non-EARB tx option, either as their only option (1014; 87%), or in addition to an EARB tx option (156; 13%). The non-EARB tx options included 377 pts (32%) with a tumor mutational burden-associated tx option. In these 1170 pts, 341 (29%) had an agreeing tx besides EARB, and 100 (9%) were enrolled on trials. Conclusions: FMI CGP identified potential NSCLC-specific tx options/a clinical trial opportunity for 52% of pts with aNSCLC. Of the pts evaluated for tx agreement, almost ½ received a tx agreeing with an option on the FMI report and/or were enrolled in a clinical trial. FMI CGP adds value beyond single biomarker testing by identifying txs and trial options in a meaningful proportion of pts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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