MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955389905 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-0823

Mechanisms of Innate and Acquired Resistance to Anti-EGFR Therapy: A Review of Current Knowledge with a Focus on Rechallenge Therapies

2019· review· en· W2955389905 on OpenAlexaff
Christine M. Parseghian, Stefania Napolitano, Jonathan M. Loree, Scott Kopetz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BC
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsEctodomainPTENMedicineAcquired resistanceCancerCancer researchPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwaySignal transductionBiologyInternal medicineReceptorGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Innate and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy (EGFRi) is a major limitation in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Although RAS genes are the most commonly mutated innate and acquired oncogenes in cancer, there are a number of other mechanisms that limit the effectiveness of EGFRi. Patients with innate resistance have been found to contain BRAFV600E mutations, and possibly MET, MEK, PIK3CA, PTEN, and HER2 alterations. Meanwhile, BRAFV600E mutations may also be involved in acquired resistance to EGFRi, in addition to EGFR ectodomain mutations, MET alterations, and possibly HER2 amplification. In addition, paracrine effects and cell-fate mechanisms of resistance are being increasingly described as contributing to acquired resistance. Utilization of circulating tumor DNA has been paramount in monitoring the dynamic nature of acquired resistance and has helped to guide treatment decisions, particularly in the EGFRi rechallenge setting. Herein, we provide an in-depth review of EGFRi-resistance mechanisms and describe the current therapeutic landscape in the hopes of identifying effective rechallenge strategies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.509
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations117
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207