MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210353417 · doi:10.53011/jmro.2021.02.04

EGFR Point of Care Clinical Testing using Idylla Platform Decreases Laboratory Turnaround Time in Advanced Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, as Compared to New Generation Sequencing

2021· article· en· W4210353417 on OpenAlexaff
Norbert Banyi, Curtis Hughesman, Kelly McNeil BSc, Barbara Melosky, Deepu Alex, Diana Beşliu-Ionescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical and Radiation Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTurnaround timeLung cancerInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)OncologyCohortCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Background: Patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from a short time-to-treatment (TTT) due to disease severity. Patients at BC Cancer with NSCLC undergo OncoPanel testing, a next-generation sequencing assay, for potential oncogenic drivers prior to treatment as outlined by CAP-AMP-IASLC guidelines. Genetic testing via OncoPanel takes more than two weeks and commonly contributes to an increased TTT. The novel ultra-rapid Idylla EGFR testing platform may decrease TTT in patients who are EGFR mutation positive (M+) due to the mutual exclusivity of actionable mutations. This study evaluates the lab turnaround time (TAT) of the Idylla EGFR testing platform and compares it to that of the OncoPanel. Methods: A group of patients (N = 235) with stage IIIB or stage IV lung adenocarcinoma diagnosed between November 1, 2020 and May 1, 2021 had both OncoPanel and Idylla EGFR testing. The time at which the sample was received in the lab, the time of Idylla EGFR test reporting, and the time of OncoPanel reporting were recorded for each patient. Differences in the lab TAT between the OncoPanel and Idylla EGFR test were compared using a paired t-test within the cohort. Results: The mean lab TAT for the Idylla and OncoPanel tests were 3.4 days (Range: 0-8 days) and 15.8 days (Range: 12-31 days), respectively. It was observed that the lab TAT of the Idylla EGFR test was faster by an average of 12.4 days (Range: 6-29 days, p<0.01, 95% CI: [11.9, 12.8] days) than the OncoPanel TAT (N=235). Conclusions: The lab TAT of the Idylla EGFR test is significantly shorter than of OncoPanel testing. In patients who are EGFR M+, molecular testing could be completed considerably faster using the Idylla EGFR testing platform since further genetic testing is unlikely to yield additional actionable information. Using the Idylla EGFR test as part of a reflexive molecular testing repertoire in advanced-stage NSCLC patients could thus reduce patient TTT."

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)0.005
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
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical and Radiation Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→