MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Concordance of <i>BRCA1</i>, <i>BRCA2</i> (BRCA), and <i>ATM</i> mutations identified in matched tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) screened in the PROfound study.

2021· article· en· W3135075565 on OpenAlexaff
Kim N., Alan Barnicle, Caroline Sibilla, Zhongwu Lai, Claire Corcoran, John Williams, J. Carl Barrett, Carrie A. Adelman, Ping Qiu, Ashley Easter, Simon Dearden, Elizabeth A. Harrington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcordanceOlaparibEnzalutamideInternal medicineOncologyCancerProstate cancerGeneGeneticsPoly ADP ribose polymerase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

26 Background: Not all mCRPC patients have available or sufficient tissue for multigene molecular testing. In the Phase 3 PROfound study, olaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival compared with physician’s choice of abiraterone or enzalutamide in men with homologous recombination repair (HRR)-gene-mutated mCRPC (de Bono et al. N Engl J Med 2020). Overall, 31% of patients’ tissue samples failed molecular screening during the study, showing the need for additional testing methods to detect patients with HRR-gene-mutated cancers. We evaluated the utility of plasma-derived ctDNA to identify deleterious BRCA and ATM mutations in screened patients from PROfound. Methods: Tumour samples were prospectively tested at Foundation Medicine, Inc (FMI) using an investigational next-generation sequencing test (based on FoundationOne CDx) to inform trial eligibility. Matched ctDNA samples were sequenced at FMI with the FoundationOne Liquid CDx assay. Tissue samples were clinically heterogeneous regarding location and timing of collection; plasma samples were collected as part of screening in PROfound. Results: 81% (503/619) of ctDNA samples tested yielded a result, of which 491 had a tumour result. BRCA and ATM status in tissue compared with ctDNA reported 81% (95% CI 75–87%) positive percentage agreement (PPA) and 92% (95% CI 89–95%) negative percentage agreement (NPA), with tissue as reference (Table). Further concordance and discordance measures will be presented. Conclusions: High concordance between tumour tissue and ctDNA supports the development of ctDNA testing as a minimally invasive method to identify patients with HRR-gene-mutated mCRPC and guide treatment decisions, particularly for those with insufficient tissue for genomic analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT02987543. [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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207