MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Transcriptome-wide mutation discovery in patients in a phase II clinical trial of first-line erlotinib for clinically selected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

2009· article· en· W3081040693 on OpenAlexaff
Janessa Laskin, Trevor J. Pugh, Camille Gunderson Jackson, Margaret Sutcliffe, Diana N. Ionescu, Barbara Melosky, Cheryl Ho, Sophie Sun, Nevin Murray, Marco A. Marra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErlotinibMedicineKRASInternal medicineOncologyLung cancerT790MAdenocarcinomaPopulationCancerEpidermal growth factor receptorColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8102 Background: The purpose of this study was to clinically select a population of patients (pts) likely to benefit from erlotinib and to perform extensive genetic profiling of fresh tissue tumour to identify predictive biomarkers. Methods: Treatment was erlotinib 150 mg p.o. daily until disease progression. Eligibility criteria included: stage IIIB/IV NSCLC; no prior chemo; ECOG ≤2; at least 2 of the following 4 criteria: women, never-smokers, Southeast Asian origin, adenocarcinoma and/or BAC. All pts had baseline serum samples and a fresh frozen tumour biopsy. EGFR and KRAS were sequenced using traditional methods to identify known mutations of erlotinib. Transcribed coding regions of all other expressed genes were sequenced to uncover novel mutations and other genetic features. Results: From Sept-06 to Oct-08, 65 pts have been enrolled. Of these 60 have completed at least 8 wks of erlotinib (or progressed before 8 wks). 49F and 11M; 45 never smokers. PS 0/1/2: 10/39/11. 18 Caucasian and 42 Asian. Pathology: 44 ACA; 3 BAC;1 squamous carcinoma; 13 NSCLC NOS. Responses: PR - 21 (35%); SD - 24 (DCR 75%); PD - 10; NE - 5. 85% did not progress at 8 weeks. 19 of 51 (37%) pre-treatment samples had an EGFR mutation. 10 of the 28 pts with response data (24pts still on drug) had a PR and 7 of these had either an LREA deletion or L858R point mutation. 1 of 3 post-treatment samples developed a T790M mutation on erlotinib. 3 of 51 pts have KRAS mutations. Analysis of over 21 Giga basepairs of aligned transcriptome sequencing data from 20 tumour samples has uncovered 1089 putative non-conservative gene mutations of which 15 are seen in multiple tumours: TUBA1C, EPS8L1, ARID4B, RPL22, C20orf52, CCT8, HLA-DRB5, TRIP6, and PLP2 in 4 tumours, C20orf52 and CTSL1 in 5 tumours, and SERF2, TMEM173, and an uncharacterized gene in 6 tumours. Conclusions: Clinical selection of pts enriches the EGFR mutation positive and KRAS mutation negative population and leads to high rates of non-progression. Full tumour RNA analysis identified several recurrent mutations that may describe mechanisms of erlotinib response and resistance. The discovery of novel mutations in multiple pts suggests patterns that may shed light on lung cancer specific behaviour. [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)0.001
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
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)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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