MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Whole-Exome Sequencing Revealed No Recurrent Mutations within the PI3K Pathway in Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Progressing Under Idelalisib Treatment

2016· article· en· W2979506023 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo Ghia, Viktor Ljungström, Eugen Tausch, Andreas Agathangelidis, Annika Scheffold, Lydia Scarfò, Billy Michael Chelliah Jebaraj, Carolyn Owen, Jacqueline C. Barrientos, Marc Zapatka, Veerendra Munugalavadla, Jeremiah D. Degenhardt, Yeonhee Kim, Ronald L. Dubowy, Lyndah Dreiling, Richard Rosenquist, Stephan Stilgenbauer

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdelalisibOfatumumabMedicineRituximabChronic lymphocytic leukemiaInternal medicineImmunologyOncologyIGHV@GastroenterologyLeukemiaIbrutinibLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Idelalisib (IDELA) is an ATP-competitive, reversible, and selective small molecule inhibitor of the delta isoform of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3Kδ) approved for the treatment, in combination with rituximab, of patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In the relapsed CLL randomized, controlled trials, IDELA + rituximab showed high response rates with improved progression-free and overall survival as compared with placebo + rituximab. While IDELA therapy has significant efficacy, disease progression after response occurs, indicating that escape mechanisms may develop. However, the molecular basis for relapse or progressive disease (PD) in CLL patients treated with IDELA has not yet been characterized. Methods: Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were collected from 13 CLL patients enrolled in the phase 3 studies; NCT01539512 (study 116; IDELA + rituximab vs placebo + rituximab), 116 extension study NCT01539291 (study 117) and NCT01659021 (study 119; IDELA + ofatumumab). Sample selection criteria included treatment period of at least 180 days (range: 243-703 days), achieving at least partial nodal response followed by PD, PD did not occur within a drug interruption window, PD was not associated with Richter's transformation, and PBMC samples were available from both baseline and time of PD. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) was conducted on the matched samples from 13 subjects fitting the above criteria. In 6/13 cases, DNA was available from CD19+/CD5+ enriched tumor cells, and neutrophils or T-lymphocytes served as a source of germline DNA. These 6 patients were considered as a discovery set for mutational analysis. Established bioinformatics tools were used for detection of somatic mutations and for the comparison of baseline and PD samples. Results: Baseline clinical patient profiles indicated that 12 of 13 patients with PD had unmutated IGHV genes and 8 patients carried TP53 aberrations (ie, 17p deletion and/or TP53 mutation). WES resulted in a mean read depth of 106X within the targeted coding region across samples. In the discovery set, on average 25 somatic mutations (range: 4-44) at baseline and 32 mutations (range: 15-81) at progression were identified. By comparing baseline and PD samples, we identified 88 PD-associated mutations. These specific mutations were tested for in a complete set of 13 patient samples; however, no recurrent progression-associated mutations were identified in more than 1 patient. In particular, no progression-associated mutations were identified in the PI3K signaling pathway or in any other related pathway. Conclusion: Across 3 phase 3 studies in relapsed CLL, WES on 13 samples from patients with PD while on IDELA treatment were evaluated. This analysis detected no relapse-associated mutations in common across this patient set; in particular, no mutations were identified in the drug-binding site (ie, "gateway mutation") or in any other related signaling pathway. Based on these results, we conclude there is no common mutational mechanism of IDELA resistance in this patient group. Disclosures Ghia: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tausch:Gilead: Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: Travel support; Amgen: Other: Travel support. Owen:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding. Barrientos:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Munugalavadla:Gilead Sciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Degenhardt:Gilead Sciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kim:Gilead Sciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dubowy:Gilead Sciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dreiling:Gilead Sciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rosenquist:Gilead Sciences: Speakers Bureau. Stilgenbauer:Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207