Biopsy on Progression in Patients with EGFR Mutation–Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer—A Canadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: mutation. Upon progression, 50%-60% develop a secondary T790M mutation. Recent trials demonstrated outcome improvement with osimertinib compared with standard platinum-based chemotherapy as second-line therapy for patients with secondary T790M mutation. To identify T790M, a biopsy of the tumour or, more recently, plasma is necessary. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate biopsy procedures and mutational analysis at 2 Canadian cancer centres. Methods: In a retrospective review of patients who were approached to enrol in the aura2, aura3, or astris studies, demographics, eligibility for rebiopsy upon progression after an egfr tki, rebiopsy methods and complications, number of rebiopsies, and incidence of the T790M mutation were collected. Results: Of 84 patients considered for trial enrolment, 80 signed a consent. In 78 patients who underwent rebiopsy, computed tomography or ultrasonography guidance were the most common methods used. The most common biopsy sites were lung and lymph nodes. The median number of rebiopsies performed to find a T790M mutation was 2. Only 9% of patients experienced complications. Of samples obtained, 74% were adequate for testing after initial rebiopsy. A T790M mutation was found in 47 patients, of whom 44 were enrolled on a trial. After multiple rebiopsies, only 5% of samples were inadequate for molecular analysis. Conclusions: In the Canadian setting, the acceptance of rebiopsy on progression was high. Multiple rebiopsies were clinically feasible and could increase the yield for T790M mutation. The incidence of complications was low despite the most common site for rebiopsy being lung.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".