MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical outcomes for plasma-based comprehensive genomic profiling versus tissue testing in advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

2021· article· en· W3172298753 on OpenAlexaff
Ray D. Page, Leylah Drusbosky, Hiba I. Dada, Victoria M. Raymond, Davey B. Daniel, Stephen G. Divers, Karen L. Reckamp, Miguel A. Villalona‐Calero, Justin I. Odegaard, Richard B. Lanman, Vassiliki A. Papadimitrakopoulou, Natasha B. Leighl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGenotypingInternal medicineOncologyLung cancerROS1Prospective cohort studyTargeted therapyBiomarkerAdenocarcinomaCancerGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9027 Background: Somatic genomic testing is recommended by numerous expert guidelines to inform targeted therapy treatment for patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma (aLUAD). The NILE study was a prospective observational study that demonstrated non-inferiority of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (cfDNA)-based tumor genotyping compared to tissue-based genotyping to find targetable genomic alterations in patients with newly diagnosed aLUAD. As the cohort has matured, clinical outcomes data can now be reported. Methods: This prospective, multicenter North American study (NCT03615443) enrolled patients with previously untreated aLUAD who had standard of care (SOC) tissue genotyping performed and concurrent comprehensive cfDNA analysis using the commercially available Guardant360 assay (Guardant Health, Redwood City, CA). After 12 months of study enrollment, objective response rates, disease control rate, and time to treatment data were collected for patients with targetable genomic alterations, as defined by NCCN guidelines, who were treated with physician’s choice of therapy. Results: Among 282 patients on the study, 89 (31.6%) had an actionable biomarker detected by tissue (21.3%) and/or cfDNA (27.3%) analysis. Sixty-one (68.5%) of these patients were treated with an FDA-approved targeted therapy guided by somatic genotyping results ( EGFR, ALK, ROS1). Thirty-three patients were eligible for clinical response evaluation and demonstrated an objective response rate of 58% and disease control rate of 94%. Twenty-five (76%) achieved a durable response > 6 months; 17 (52%) achieved a durable response > 12 months. Patients responded to targeted therapy regardless of the variant allele frequency of the target alteration. The time to treatment (TtT) was significantly faster for cfDNA-informed biomarker detection as compared to tissue genotyping (median 18 vs 31 days, respectively; p = 0.0008). Conclusions: This is the first prospective community-based study to find that cfDNA detects guideline-recommended biomarkers at a rate similar to tissue genotyping, and therapeutic outcomes based on plasma-based comprehensive genomic profiling are comparable to published tissue-based targeted therapy clinical outcomes. The NILE study complements and confirms findings in the prospective FLAURA and SLLIP studies, which exclusively enrolled at academic sites. Clinical trial information: NCT03615443.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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