MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

External validation of the VIGex gene-expression signature (GES) as a novel predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint treatment (ICT).

2022· article· en· W4281703721 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Hernando‐Calvo, S.Y. Cindy Yang, María Vila-Casadesús, Hal K. Berman, Anna Spreafico, Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak, Stéphanie Lheureux, Aaron R. Hansen, Deborah Lo Giacco, Judit Matito, Trevor J. Pugh, Scott V. Bratman, Roger Berché, O. Saavedra Santa Gadea, Elena Garralda, Sawako Elston, Lillian L. Siu, Pamela S. Ohashi, Ana Vivancos, Philippe L. Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioProportional hazards modelOncologyInternal medicineBiomarkerPembrolizumabCancerCancer researchImmunotherapyBiologyConfidence intervalGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2510 Background: VIGex is a 12- gene GES classifier initially developed on the Nanostring platform and validated for RNA-seq. VIGex classifies samples into Hot, intermediate-Cold (I-Cold) and Cold subgroups. The Hot subgroup as defined by VIGex has been associated with better (PFS) in patients (pts) treated on phase 1 ICT trials at Vall D’Hebron Hospital (VH) (ESMO2020). We investigated the performance of VIGex in pts treated with Pembrolizumab (P) in the INSPIRE clinical trial (NCT02644369) at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) and compared VIGex with other predictive ICT biomarkers. Methods: Pts with advanced solid tumors were treated with P 200 mg IV Q3wks. RNA-seq from baseline biopsies was performed using the Illumina NextSeq550 platform. Tumor RNA-seq data were transferred from PM to VH and classified by the VIGex algorithm blinded to clinical data. Bespoke circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was assayed at baseline (B) and start of cycle 3 (C3) using a pt-specific amplicon-based NGS assay (Signatera). Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was defined as the number of non-synonymous mutations per megabase and PD-L1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry (22C3). Hot subgroup (HOT) was compared to I-Cold + Cold (COLD). We defined 4 groups based on the combination of VIGex subgroups and the change in ctDNA at cycle 3 from baseline (ΔctDNA). Survival times were calculated with the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional-hazard models were constructed. Results: Out of 76 pts, median age was 55y (range 21-81y), M:F 31:45, all ECOG 0-1, 16 High-grade serous ovarian, 12 triple negative breast, 12 head and neck, 10 melanoma and 26 other. Median no. of P cycles was 3 (range 1–35); follow up was 14m (range 1-67); Median PFS 10.9m and median overall survival (OS) 14m. Overall response rate (RECIST 1.1) was 24% in HOT and 10% in COLD (p = 0.22 two-sided Fisher's exact test). The HOT subgroup was significantly associated with higher OS and PFS when included in a multivariate model adjusted by tumor histology, TMB and PD-L1 (HR 0.43; 95%CI 0.23-0.81; p = 0.009) and (HR: 0.48; 95%CI 0.25-0.95; p = 0.036) respectively. A total of 57 pts had both VIGex and ΔctDNA data. The addition of ΔctDNA further improved the predictive performance of VIGex for OS (Table). Conclusions: VIGex maintained its predictive power for ICT outcomes when applied to an independent external dataset using RNA-seq. The predictive information provided by VIGex was independent of PD-L1 and TMB. Our data indicates that the addition of ΔctDNA to baseline VIGex may refine prediction for ICT outcomes. [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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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