MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic and predictive effect of <i>KRAS</i> gene copy number and mutation status in early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

2020· article· en· W3030899765 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea S. Fung, Maryam Karimi, Stefan Michiels, Lesley Seymour, Élisabeth Brambilla, Thierry Le Chevalier, Jean‐Charles Soria, Robert A. Kratzke, Stephen L. Graziano, Siddhartha Devarakonda, Ramaswamy Govindan, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkQueen's UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKRASMedicineInternal medicineAdenocarcinomaOncologyConcomitantLung cancerProportional hazards modelStage (stratigraphy)Clinical endpointSurvival analysisCancerColorectal cancerClinical trialBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e21080 Background: The prognostic and predictive role of KRAS mutations and gene copy number aberrations (CNA) in early stage NSCLC is unclear. In this study, we characterize the prognostic effect of KRAS mutation status and concomitant CN gain in early stage NSCLC, and determine the ability to predict survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We hypothesize that concomitant KRAS mutations and CN gain will be prognostic of worse survival compared to KRAS mutations alone. Methods: Clinical and genomic data from The LACE (Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation)-BIO consortium was utilized. CNA were categorized as Gain or Neutral (Neut)/Loss; mutation status was defined as wild type (WT) or mutant (MUT). WT+Neut/Loss (reference), WT+Gain, MUT+Gain and MUT+Neut/Loss groups were compared in all patients and the adenocarcinoma subgroup. Primary endpoint was lung-cancer-specific survival (LCSS); secondary endpoints were DFS and OS. Survival curves were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Concomitant KRAS CNA and mutation status was correlated to endpoints using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by trial and adjusted for treatment, age, gender, histology, WHO performance status, surgery type, tumor and nodal stage. A treatment-by-variable interaction was added to evaluate predictive effect. Results: 946 (399 adenocarcinoma) patients had complete KRAS mutation, CNA and clinical data: 41 (30) MUT+Gain, 145 (99) MUT+Neut/Loss, 125 (16) WT+Gain, 635 (254) WT+Neut/Loss. There was a negative prognostic effect of KRAS MUT+Neut/Loss for LCSS (HR = 1.32 [1.01-1.71]) on univariable analysis, and to a lesser extent after adjusting for covariates (HR = 1.28 [0.97-1.68]). A similar non-significant trend was observed in KRAS MUT+Gain patients for LCSS (HR = 1.34 [0.83-2.17]), DFS (HR = 1.34 [0.86-2.09]) and OS (HR = 1.59 [0.99-2.54]). There was no significant predictive effect in the overall population; however, a potential predictive effect of KRAS for OS was seen in the adenocarcinoma subgroup (interaction p = 0.046). KRAS MUT+Gain was associated with a beneficial effect of chemotherapy on DFS (HR = 0.33 [0.11-0.99], p = 0.048), with a non-significant trend also seen for LCSS (HR = 0.41 [0.13-1.33]) and OS (HR = 0.40 [0.13-1.26]). Conclusions: A small prognostic effect of KRAS mutation was identified for LCSS. A potential predictive effect of concomitant KRAS mutation status and CNA was observed for DFS in adenocarcinoma patients. These results could be driven by the small number of patients and require further validation.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→