MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107432893 · doi:10.1002/1878-0261.12861

Multiplex RNA‐based detection of clinically relevant <i>MET</i> alterations in advanced non‐small cell lung cancer

2020· article· en· W3107432893 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cristina Aguado, Cristina Teixidó, Ruth Román, Roxana Reyes, Ana Giménez‐Capitán, Elba Marín, Carlos Cabrera, Núria Viñolas, S. Castillo, Silvia Muñoz, A. Arcocha, Laura López‐Vilaró, Ivana Sullivan, Erika Aldeguer, Sónia Rodríguez, Irene Moya, Santiago Viteri, Andrés F. Cardona, Ramón Palmero, Cristina Sainz, Miguel Mesa, María D. Lozano, Andrés Aguilar‐Hernández, Alejandro Martínez‐Bueno, María González‐Cao, Elena Gonzalvo, William P. J. Leenders, Rafael Rosell, Luis M. Montuenga, Aleix Prat, Miguel Ángel Molina‐Vila, Noemı́ Reguart

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEurostarsInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIEuropean CommissionAmgenPfizerAstraZenecaDaiichi Sankyo EuropeOncolytics BiotechEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsLung cancerMultiplexMedicineCancer researchRNABiologyPathologyBioinformaticsGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MET inhibitors have shown activity in non-small-cell lung cancer patients (NSCLC) with MET amplification and exon 14 skipping (METΔex14). However, patient stratification is imperfect, and thus, response rates have varied widely. Here, we studied MET alterations in 474 advanced NSCLC patients by nCounter, an RNA-based technique, together with next-generation sequencing (NGS), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), immunohistochemistry (IHC), and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), exploring correlation with clinical benefit. Of the 474 samples analyzed, 422 (89%) yielded valid results by nCounter, which identified 13 patients (3%) with METΔex14 and 15 patients (3.5%) with very-high MET mRNA expression. These two subgroups were mutually exclusive, displayed distinct phenotypes and did not generally coexist with other drivers. For METΔex14, 3/8 (37.5%) samples positive by nCounter tested negative by NGS. Regarding patients with very-high MET mRNA, 92% had MET amplification by FISH and/or NGS. However, FISH failed to identify three patients (30%) with very-high MET RNA expression, among which one received MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment deriving clinical benefit. Our results indicate that quantitative mRNA-based techniques can improve the selection of patients for MET-targeted 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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207