Clonal Evolution and Heterogeneity of Osimertinib Acquired Resistance Mechanisms in EGFR Mutant Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonal evolution of osimertinib-resistance mechanisms in EGFR mutant lung adenocarcinoma is poorly understood. Using multi-region whole-exome and RNA sequencing of prospectively collected pre- and post-osimertinib-resistant tumors, including at rapid autopsies, we identify a likely mechanism driving osimertinib resistance in all patients analyzed. The majority of patients acquire two or more resistance mechanisms either concurrently or in temporal sequence. Focal copy-number amplifications occur subclonally and are spatially and temporally separated from common resistance mutations such as EGFR C797S. MET amplification occurs in 66% (n = 6/9) of first-line osimertinib-treated patients, albeit spatially heterogeneous, often co-occurs with additional acquired focal copy-number amplifications and is associated with early progression. Noteworthy osimertinib-resistance mechanisms discovered include neuroendocrine differentiation without histologic transformation, PD-L1 , KRAS amplification, and ESR1-AKAP12 , MKRN1-BRAF fusions. The subclonal co-occurrence of acquired genomic alterations upon osimertinib resistance will likely require targeting multiple resistance mechanisms by combination therapies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".