MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956294330 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.00698

Precision Medicine Tools to Guide Therapy and Monitor Response to Treatment in a HER-2+ Gastric Cancer Patient: Case Report

2019· article· en· W2956294330 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Aguilar‐Mahecha, Sarah Joseph, Luca Cavallone, Marguerite Buchanan, Urszula Krzemien, Gerald Batist, Mark Basik

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrecision medicineTrastuzumabCancerOncologyInternal medicinePersonalized medicineDiseaseClinical trialCirculating tumor DNACompanion diagnosticTargeted therapyBioinformaticsPathologyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trastuzumab, has played a major role in improving treatment outcomes in HER-2 positive gastric cancer. However, once there is disease progression there is a paucity of evidence for second line therapy. Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) in combination with liquid biopsies can help guide individual therapeutic decisions and have now started to be studied. In the present case we established a PDX model from a metastatic HER-2+ gastric cancer patient and after the first engraftment passage we performed a mouse clinical trial to test T-DM1 as an alternative therapy for the patient. The PDX tumor response served as a guide to administer T-DM1 therapy to the patient who responded to treatment before relapsing 6 months later. Throughout out the clinical follow up of the patient, ctDNA levels of HER-2 copy number and a PIK3CA mutation were monitored and we found their correlation with drug response and disease progression to outperform that of CEA levels. This study highlights the utility of applying precision medicine tools combining PDX models to guide therapy with circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to monitor treatment response and disease progression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207