MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

MET status and treatment outcomes in papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC): Pooled analysis of historical data.

2020· article· en· W3029122368 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Albigès, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Stephen Walker, Anders Mellemgaard, Lone H. Ottesen, Melanie M. Frigault, Anne L’Hernault, Jonathan Wessen, Toni K. Choueiri, Mathilde Cancel, Sabina Signoretti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSunitinibInternal medicineEverolimusOncologyRenal cell carcinomaPapillary renal cell carcinomas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e19321 Background: PRCC accounts for 10–15% of RCCs, but there are limited biomarker-based data to inform targeted treatment. Treatments for patients (pts) with advanced/metastatic PRCC include those approved for clear cell RCC such as sunitinib or everolimus, however their activity in PRCC can be limited. A subset of PRCCs are MET-driven, and it has been suggested that this may be a negative prognostic factor, although the role of MET activation in advanced/metastatic disease is unclear. We explored the prevalance of MET status in pts with advanced/metastatic PRCC treated with targeted therapies and impact on clinical outcomes. Methods: This large, international, retrospective, observational study included pts with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic PRCC. MET status was determined retrospectively by NGS of archival tissue. MET-driven disease was defined as MET and/or HGF amplification, chromosome 7 gain (requiring > 30% tumor content) and/or MET kinase domain mutations. Study objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) by MET status. Results: 305/308 pts (International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium, n = 72; The Asan Genito-Urinary Cancer Center, n = 40; Groupe Français d’Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Génitales, n = 196) received first-line (1L) treatment; sunitinib was most common (68%). 214 (69%) pts received 2L therapy; everolimus was most common (20%). Of 179 pts with valid NGS results, 38%, 49% and 13% had MET-driven, MET-independent (ind) tumors and chromosome 7 ploidy unevaluable, respectively. Baseline demographics were mostly balanced among groups. In sunitinib-treated pts, PFS and TTF were numerically longer in pts with MET-driven tumors vs pts with MET-ind tumors, but OS was similar (Table). In everolimus-treated pts, PFS and TTF were similar for both MET groups; however the sample size was small. Conclusions: MET alterations are frequent in advanced/metastatic PRCC and have potential to impact PFS and TTF, although our results show limited effect on OS. These data show that MET-driven tumours may not predict for poorer outcome vs MET-ind tumours and there is a need for suitable therapies for MET-driven PRCC. [Table: see text]

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→