MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PD2-08: Gene expression analysis and association with treatment response in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer in the MONALEESA-3 study

2020· article· en· W3013767050 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Chia, Faye Su, Patrick Neven, Seock‐Ah Im, Katarína Petráková, Giulia Bianchi, Wei He, Karen Rodriguez-Lorenc, Tetiana Taran, Naveen Babbar, Dennis J. Slamon

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFulvestrantMedicineBreast cancerEstrogen receptorInternal medicineOncologyCancerHazard ratioLapatinibCancer researchProgression-free survivalMetastatic breast cancerEndocrinologyTrastuzumabConfidence intervalChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In the Phase III MONALEESA-3 study (NCT02422615),the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib(RIB) + fulvestrant significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (PBO) + fulvestrant in postmenopausal patients (pts) with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC; median, 20.5 vs 12.8 mo; hazard ratio 0.593 [95% CI, 0.480-0.732]; P< .001; Slamon D et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018). Previous MONALEESA-3 biomarker analyses, including those based on immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing of baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), showed consistent PFS benefit with ribociclib (Neven P et al. ESMO 2018; Neven P et al. SABCS 2018). We present analyses of gene expression in baseline tumor samples from the MONALEESA-3 trial and potential correlations with PFS. Methods: Postmenopausal pts with ≤1 prior line of ET for advanced disease were enrolled and randomized 2:1to receive either RIB or PBO plus fulvestrant. Gene expression data were generated for 531 patients using tumor samples collected before treatment using the NanoString 800-gene nCounter® GX Customized Panel. Correlations between PFS and mRNA expression levels were assessed for various genes, including those relevant to breast cancer, the CDK4/6 pathway, the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), estrogen receptor (ER) signaling and response to estrogen, and proliferation; specific genes are listed in the Table. Pts were classified into low and high mRNA expression subgroups, with median values of gene expression levels or pathway scores as the cutoff. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median PFS with 95% CIs in each treatment arm by biomarker subgroup. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs. Results: PFS hazard ratios for all biomarker subgroups favored RIB + fulvestrant vs PBO + fulvestrant (Table). There appeared to be a trend toward greater PFS benefit with RIB in patients with lower expression of BCL2 or genes involved in ER signaling. Similar RIB PFS benefit was observed regardless of the expression level of the CCNE1 gene, RTK genes, genes involved in tumor cell proliferation, CDK4/6 pathway genes, or MAPK pathway genes. Conclusions: The PFS benefit observed with RIB vs PBO across gene expression subgroups in this analysis was generally consistent with that seen in the primary analysis of MONALEESA-3. Table. Progression-Free Survival by Gene Expression SubgroupGene/PathwayLow ExpressionHigh ExpressionPBORIBPBORIBCCNE1an9017682183Median PFS, mo14.5220.0412.7816.62HR (95% CI)0.62 (0.44-0.87)0.66 (0.46-0.94)BCL2an7918793172Median PFS, mo9.4317.9418.4620.04HR (95% CI)0.47 (0.33-0.66)0.8 (0.55-1.14)Proliferationbn9017682183Median PFS, mo12.6819.0912.9120.04HR (95% CI)0.58 (0.41-0.81)0.72 (0.5-1.03)ER signalingcn8018692173Median PFS, mo9.4619.2914.8219.12HR (95% CI)0.53 (0.37-0.75)0.78 (0.55-1.11)Estrogen responsivedn8518187178Median PFS, mo9.116.3619.3823.46HR (95% CI)0.53 (0.38-0.74)0.76 (0.52-1.11)RTK genesen8717985180Median PFS, mo12.29NA16.4916.62HR (95% CI)0.55 (0.38-0.79)0.73 (0.51-1.03)CDK4/6 pathwayfn9017682183Median PFS, mo16.5622.0810.8416.49HR (95% CI)0.63 (0.43-0.9)0.67 (0.48-0.94)MAPK pathwaygn9117581184Median PFS, mo12.2922.0812.9117.94HR (95% CI)0.66 (0.47-0.94)0.65 (0.45-0.92)aBreast cancer–related gene; b MKI67, TYMS, MYC, TOP2A; c GATA3, FOXA1, AR, ESR1; d CCND1, PGR, NAT1, FOXA1, RARA, BCL2, BAG1, GATA3, MYC, STC2, XBP1; e AREG, EGFR, ERBB2, ERBB3, ERBB4, FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, FGFR4, FYN, IGF1, KDR, KIT, PDGFA, PDGFRA, PDGFRB, TYRO3; f CCNA2, CCND1, CCND2, CCND3, CCNE1, CDK2, CDK4, CDK6, E2F1, E2F3, TFDP1, CCNB1, CDKN1A, CDKN1B, CDKN2A, CDKN2B, CDKN2C, CDKN3, RB1, RBBP8, RBL1, RBL2, TP53; g BRAF, HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, RAF1, MAP3K8, NF1. Citation Format: Stephen Chia, Faye Su, Patrick Neven, Seock-Ah Im, Katarina Petrakova, Giulia Val Bianchi, Wei He, Karen Rodriguez-Lorenc, Tetiana Taran, Naveen Babbar, Dennis Slamon. Gene expression analysis and association with treatment response in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer in the MONALEESA-3 study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-08.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207