MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic impact of pSTAT3 on overall survival (OS) in gastrointestinal (GI) cancers: Data from 3 phase 3, randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

2021· article· en· W3172087835 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Brooks, Claudia Lebedinsky, Tanios Bekaii‐Saab, Manish A. Shah, Derek J. Jonker, Kamesh R. Kuchimanchi, Ewa Wybieralska, Marilyn Fontaine, Cindy Oh, Suha Sari, Emma Foos, Bo Xu, Matthew Hitron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunohistochemistryCancerInternal medicineOncologyBiomarkerPhases of clinical researchColorectal cancerCancer researchClinical trialBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4147 Background: Retrospective studies of phosphorylated STAT3 (pSTAT3, a regulator of gene expression) in cancer-lineage cells have suggested it is a biomarker of poor prognosis. We analyzed data from 3 phase 3 RCTs (BRIGHTER [T1; NCT02178956], CO.23 [T2; NCT01830621], CanStem111P [T3; NCT02993731]) to evaluate the prognostic impact of pSTAT3 on OS in GI cancer patients (pts). Methods: pSTAT3 was evaluated in archival tumor tissue from pts with gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (T1), colorectal cancer (T2), or pancreatic cancer (T3) who received standard of care in the control arms (CTL) of their respective trials. pSTAT3 positive (+) or negative (−) status was determined by detecting pSTAT3 in both tumor and tumor microenvironment (TME) cells in a laboratory-developed immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay (T1; T2), later developed into the investigational pSTAT3 IHC D3A7 assay (Agilent Technologies, Inc.) (T3). The positivity cutoff requires a sample have both a TME score of 2 and ≥5% of tumor cells staining positively for pSTAT3. Pre-analytical variables (eg, specimen collection, handling, and processing), tumor indication, and slight differences in the assays used for each study may contribute to relative differences in evaluable rates between studies. In an exploratory analysis, OS was compared in pSTAT3+ vs pSTAT3− pts via an unstratified log-rank test. Results: In each study, intent-to-treat pts with evaluable pSTAT3 results were considered pSTAT3-evaluable. This abstract includes pSTAT3-evaluable pts randomized to the CTL arms (T1: n/N=248/357, 69.5%; T2: n/N=110/144, 76.4%; T3: n/N=243/569, 42.7%). Baseline characteristics are presented in the table. Median (m) OS was shorter in pts with pSTAT3+ tumors across all studies (T1 hazard ratio [HR]=1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 1.74]; T2 HR=2.40 [1.50, 3.83]; T3 HR=1.08 [0.77, 1.50]). Conclusions: In pSTAT3-evaluable populations from 3 RCTs across GI cancers, CTL pts with pSTAT3+ (vs pSTAT3−) tumors had shorter mOS. These results suggest that pSTAT3 positivity may be a biomarker of poor clinical outcome. Clinical trial information: NCT02178956; NCT01830621; NCT02993731. [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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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