MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) determinants of improved outcomes in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors receiving the ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related inhibitor (ATRi), RP-3500, in the phase 1/2a TRESR trial (NCT04497116).

2022· article· en· W4281780613 on OpenAlexaff
Ezra Y. Rosen, Ian M. Silverman, Elisa Fontana, Elizabeth Katherine Lee, David R. Spigel, Martin Højgaard, Stéphanie Lheureux, Niharika B. Mettu, Benedito A. Carneiro, Louise Carter, Elizabeth Ruth Plummer, Joseph D. Schonhoft, Danielle Ulanet, Peter Manley, Jorge S. Reis‐Filho, Yi Xu, Victoria Rimkunas, María Koehler, Timothy A. Yap

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicinePeripheral blood mononuclear cellOncologyGermlineGastroenterologyGeneGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3082 Background: RP-3500 is a selective and potent oral ATRi in development for advanced solid tumors harboring loss-of-function (LOF) alterations in genes associated with ATRi sensitivity. We determined whether ctDNA can facilitate enrollment/monitoring of pts treated with RP-3500. Methods: Serial plasma samples collected at baseline (BL, 99 pts) and early timepoints on therapy (89 pts, 3-9 weeks [wks]) were profiled for ctDNA (Tempus xF or Guardant360). Targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) (SNiPDx panel) was performed on matched peripheral blood mononuclear cells and tumor samples collected at BL. Molecular ctDNA response (MR) was defined as ≥50% reduction in mean variant allele frequency (VAF) from BL to any timepoint ≤9 wks on-therapy. Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) or germline alterations were excluded from the analysis. Efficacy was assessed in pts treated with > 100 mg RP-3500/day with ≥1 post-BL response assessment. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical benefit rate (CBR; CR/PR by RECIST1.1 or PSA/CA-125, or > 16 wks on treatment). Results: BL ctDNA was detected in 82% (81/99) of pts. Eligibility alterations were evaluable by the ctDNA panel in 61% (60/99) of pts, excluding structural/copy number variants and genes/exons not on the panel. Percent agreement between BL ctDNA and local eligibility NGS test was 93% (56/60). CH variants were identified in 26 pts (1-14 per pt); median VAF was 0.4% (0.1-12.4%). Two pts with pathogenic ataxia-telangiectasia mutated ( ATM) alterations were determined to be from CH. MRs were observed in 44% (24/55) of pts with median time to MR of 3.3 wks and were across tumors harboring ATM (10/20), BRCA2 (7/10), BRCA1 (4/15), CDK12 (1/3), PALB2 (1/3) and RAD51C (1/1) pathogenic alterations. Four pts with BRCA1 mutant tumors had MRs, 2 of whom (breast cancer) had received prior PARPi and had confirmed BRCA1 reversion mutations and clinical benefit (CB). One pt with g ATM pancreatic cancer with CB had > 90% reduction in KRAS mutant VAF at 3 wks. MR was associated with longer mPFS (29 vs 12 wks, p = 0.0002) and significantly higher CBR (17/22 (77%) vs. 8/28 (29%); p = 0.001) than those without MR. Pts with MRs not achieving CB (N = 5) included 4 with RP-3500 dose interruptions/reductions and 1 who discontinued early (10 wks) due to clinical progression but with decreased target lesions and stable disease. Conclusions: ctDNA testing is a reliable method to detect DNA damage repair LOF alterations but is limited to alterations and genes/exons covered by the ctDNA test. CH alterations are frequent, especially for ATM, thus matched normal analysis is preferred. Changes in ctDNA as early as 3 wks were associated with improved outcomes and may be useful for evaluating drug activity in heterogenous tumors outside of traditional efficacy endpoints. Clinical trial information: NCT04497116.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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