MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2984096533 · doi:10.1101/832717

Reversion and non-reversion mechanisms of resistance to PARP inhibitor or platinum chemotherapy in <i>BRCA1/2</i> -mutant metastatic breast cancer

2019· preprint· en· W2984096533 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adrienne G. Waks, Ofir Cohen, Bose Kochupurakkal, Dewey Kim, Connor E. Dunn, Jorge Buendia, Seth A. Wander, Karla Helvie, Maxwell R. Lloyd, Lori Marini, Melissa E. Hughes, Samuel S. Freeman, S. Percy Ivy, Joseph Geradts, Steve Isakoff, Patricia LoRusso, Viktor A. Adalsteinsson, Sara M. Tolaney, Ursula A. Matulonis, Ian E. Krop, Alan D. D’Andrea, Eric P. Winer, Nancy U. Lin, Geoffrey I. Shapiro, Nikhil Wagle

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenentechNational Institutes of HealthSierra OncologyPharmaMarDaiichi-SankyoFoundation MedicineMacroGenicsPuma BiotechnologyEMD SeronoMersana TherapeuticsNational Comprehensive Cancer NetworkFashion Footwear Association of New YorkNational Cancer InstituteGenomic HealthYale UniversityU.S. Department of DefenseBreast Cancer Research FoundationYale Cancer CenterPfizerDana-Farber/Harvard Cancer CenterCarrick TherapeuticsAstraZenecaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsRAD51ReversionCancer researchBreast cancerPARP inhibitorHomologous recombinationGermline mutationBiologyGermlineCancerMutationDNAPoly ADP ribose polymeraseGeneticsGenePolymerase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Little is known about mechanisms of resistance to PARP inhibitors and platinum chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer and BRCA1 /2 mutations. Further investigation of resistance in clinical cohorts may point to strategies to prevent or overcome treatment failure. Patients and Methods We obtained tumor biopsies from metastatic breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 deficiency before and after acquired resistance to PARP inhibitor or platinum chemotherapy. Whole exome sequencing was performed on each tumor, germline DNA, and circulating tumor DNA. Tumors underwent RNA sequencing, and immunohistochemical staining for RAD51 foci on tumor sections was performed for functional assessment of intact homologous recombination. Results Pre- and post-resistance tumor samples were sequenced from 8 patients (4 with BRCA1 and 4 with BRCA2 mutation; 4 treated with PARP inhibitor and 4 with platinum). Following disease progression on DNA-damaging therapy, four patients (50%) acquired at least one somatic reversion alteration likely to result in functional BRCA1/2 protein detected by tumor or circulating tumor DNA sequencing. Two patients with germline BRCA1 deficiency acquired genomic alterations anticipated to restore homologous recombination through increased DNA end resection: loss of TP53BP1 in one patient and amplification of MRE11A in another. RAD51 foci were acquired post-resistance in all patients with genomic reversion, consistent with reconstitution of homologous recombination. All patients whose tumors demonstrated RAD51 foci post-resistance were intrinsically resistant to subsequent lines of DNA-damaging therapy. Conclusions Genomic reversion in BRCA1/2 was the most commonly observed mechanism of resistance, occurring in 4 of 8 patients. Novel sequence alterations leading to increased DNA end resection were seen in two patients, and may be targetable for therapeutic benefit. The presence of RAD51 foci by immunohistochemistry was consistent with BRCA1/2 protein functional status from genomic data and predicted response to later DNA-damaging therapy, supporting RAD51 focus formation as a clinically useful biomarker.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicDNA Repair Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→