MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Plasma first: Accelerating lung cancer diagnosis through liquid biopsy.

2022· article· en· W4286298419 on OpenAlexafffund
Kasia Czarnecka, Jennifer Law, Alexandra Salvarrey, Roxanne Fernandes, Jason Fan, Lucy Corke, Lisa W. Le, Thomas K. Waddell, Kazuhiro Yasufuku, Geoffrey Liu, Frances A. Shepherd, Penelope Ann Bradbury, Adrian G. Sacher, Tracy Stockley, Prodipto Pal, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Karen Howarth, Christodoulos Pipinikas, Natasha B. Leighl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersLung Health Foundation
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerCohortLiquid biopsyBiopsyStage (stratigraphy)Clinical endpointInternal medicineLungCancerOncologyPathologyGastroenterologyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3039 Background: Molecular profiling of tumor tissue is the gold standard for treatment decision making in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Results may be delayed or unavailable due to insufficient tissue samples or prolonged wait times for biopsy, pathology assessment and testing. We piloted the use of plasma molecular testing as part of the initial diagnostic work-up for patients with suspected advanced lung cancer (NCT04863924). Methods: Patients with radiologic evidence of advanced lung cancer referred to the lung rapid diagnostic program underwent plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing using InVisionFirst-Lung, a next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay targeting 37 genes. Standard tissue testing was performed with comprehensive NGS (Oncomine). The primary endpoint was time to treatment in stage IV NSCLC patients compared to an historical pre-COVID-19 cohort (2018-9). Secondary endpoints included actionable targets identified in plasma, % of patients starting targeted therapy based on liquid biopsy and result turnaround time (TAT). Results: Between July 1 to December 31, 2021, 60 patients were enrolled. Median age was 70 years (range 33-91), 52% were female, 57% Caucasian, 48% never smokers. Of these, 73% had NSCLC, 12% small cell, 10% non-lung pathology and 5% declined tissue biopsy. Of 44 NSCLC patients, 5 (11%) had early-stage disease and underwent curative therapy. Most stage IV patients (79%) had systemic treatment. Median time to treatment initiation in the study cohort was 34 days (n = 31, range 10-90) versus 62 days (n = 101, range 13-159) in the historical cohort (p<0.0001). Two thirds (N = 23) of stage IV NSCLC patients had actionable alterations identified, (30% in current/ex-smokers); 18 started targeted therapy including 10 based on plasma results before tissue results were available. Median TAT was 7 days for plasma from blood draw to reporting (range 4-14) and 26 days for tissue molecular testing (range 11-42), p<0.0001. Concordance was high between plasma and tissue testing (70%). Liquid biopsy identified actionable alterations for 3 patients not identified by tissue NGS. In 4 cases, plasma testing failed to identify actionable alterations detected in tissue, due to undetectable plasma ctDNA. Conclusions: Liquid biopsy in the initial diagnostic workup of patients with suspected advanced NSCLC leads to faster molecular results and shortens time to treatment compared to tissue testing alone. Supplementing the current standard of tissue molecular testing with a plasma-first approach during the diagnostic work up of patients with suspected advanced lung cancer may increase access to precision medicine and improve patient outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT04863924. [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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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