MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tissue and plasma tumor mutation burden (TMB) as predictive biomarkers in the CO.26 trial of durvalumab + tremelimumab (D+T) versus best supportive care (BSC) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2021· article· en· W3122558395 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Loree, James T. Topham, Hagen F. Kennecke, Harriet Feilotter, Faeze Keshavarz-Rahaghi, Young S. Lee, Weimin Li, Katie Quinn, Kimberly C. Banks, Daniel J. Renouf, Derek J. Jonker, Dongsheng Tu, Christopher J. O’Callaghan, Eric Xueyu Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa HospitalBC Cancer AgencyUniversity Health NetworkQueen's UniversityGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineMicrosatellite instabilityPopulationOncologyPembrolizumabDurvalumabGastroenterologyOxaliplatinImmunotherapyHazard ratioCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

61 Background: Pembrolizumab was recently granted tissue agnostic FDA accelerated approval for metastatic cancers with TMB≥10 mut/Mb. However, limited data supports immunotherapy in microsatellite stable (MSS) mCRC with TMB≥10 mut/Mb. We assessed tissue TMB and contrasted it to plasma derived TMB in the CO.26 trial. Methods: CO.26 was a phase 2 trial (2-sided ⍺ = 0.1 and 80% power) that randomized 180 patients (pts) 2:1 to D+T or BSC in refractory mCRC. Pre-treatment plasma was sequenced with the GuardantOMNI assay and archival tissue underwent exome sequencing with TMB assessed per the TMB harmonization project. MSI-H cases were excluded. For plasma TMB, we used a previously published cut point (≥28). Results: Overall survival (OS) but not progression free survival (PFS) was improved with D+T in the entire population. Of 180 pts, 163 were evaluable for plasma and 110 for tissue TMB. Median time between archival tissue and plasma collection was 3.1 yrs (IQR 1.9-5.1). Median tissue TMB was 6.6 muts/Mb (IQR 4.1-12.0), while median plasma TMB was 16.3 muts/Mb (IQR 9.4-25.9). Tissue and plasma TMB (r = -0.039, P = 0.69) were not correlated. Tissue TMB≥10 was not prognostic in the BSC arm (HR 1.01, 90%CI 0.52-1.92, P = 0.99) and OS was not improved in pts with tissue TMB≥10 (32/110 pts) following D+T vs BSC. A test of interaction suggested this threshold was not predictive (P = 0.85). Using a minimum P-value approach, no threshold supported high tissue TMB as predictive in MSS mCRC. In fact, the optimal cut point suggested low tissue TMB ( < 4.1 muts/Mb) had the greatest benefit from D+T (P-interaction = 0.048) and pts with TMB ≥4.1 mut/Mb (HR 0.50, 90%CI 0.26-0.96, P = 0.083) trended to better OS in the BSC arm. In contrast, 35/163 pts (21%) were identified in a high plasma TMB group associated with worse OS (HR 2.56, 90%CI 1.45-4.54, P = 0.007) in the BSC arm but improved OS following D+T compared to BSC with P-interaction = 0.082. Only 1 response was noted following D+T in a pt with tissue TMB = 16 mut/Mb and plasma TMB = 13 mut/Mb. Conclusions: Archival tissue TMB≥10 mut/Mb does not appear predictive of D+T benefit in MSS mCRC. Plasma derived TMB may better reflect evolutionary changes following intervening therapy than archival tissue. Clinical trial information: NCT02870920. [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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207