MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract A013: CDK2 and CDK4/6 inhibition in GIST: Mechanisms of response and resistance

2022· article· en· W4296130406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Inga‐Marie Schaefer, Matthew L. Hemming, Meijun Z. Lundberg, Matthew P. Serrata, Isabel Goldaracena, Ninning Liu, Peng Yin, João A. Paulo, Steven P. Gygi, Suzanne George, Jeffrey A. Morgan, Monica M. Bertagnolli, Ewa Sicińska, Adrián Mariño‐Enríquez, Jason L. Hornick, Chandrajit P. Raut, George D. Demetri, Wen‐Bin Ou, Sinem K. Saka, Jonathan A. Fletcher

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclin D1Cancer researchCyclin-dependent kinasePalbociclibCyclin-dependent kinase 2Cell cycleGiSTBiologyCell growthHyperphosphorylationKinaseCell cultureCellCell biologyCancerBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Advanced GIST is characterized by genomic perturbations of key cell cycle regulators. Oncogenic activation of CDK4/6 results in RB1 inactivation and cell cycle progression. Given that single-agent CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy failed to show clinical activity in advanced GIST, we evaluated strategies for maximizing response to therapeutic CDK4/6 inhibition. Targeted next-generation sequencing and multiplexed protein imaging were used to detect cell cycle regulator aberrations in GIST clinical samples (N=18), including 8 metastatic TKI-resistant GISTs. Multiple metastases were analyzed in 3 patients. The impact of CDK2i (CDK2 inhibitor-II), CDK4/6i (palbociclib or abemaciclib), and CDK2/4/6i (PF-06873600) was determined through cell proliferation and protein detection assays in vitro and in vivo. Mechanisms of acquired CDK2i and CDK4/6i resistance were characterized in GIST cell lines after long-term exposure. The results demonstrate recurrent genomic aberrations in cell cycle regulators causing co-activation of the CDK2 and CDK4/6 pathways. Identical aberrations of p16, RB1, and TP53 were present in all metastases from 3 patients. We show that therapeutic co-targeting of CDK2 and CDK4/6 is synergistic in GIST cell lines with intact RB1, through inhibition of RB1 hyperphosphorylation and cell proliferation (P<0.01). Intact RB1 predicted response to treatment, whereas RB1-deficient models were resistant. Moreover, we identify RB1 inactivation and a novel oncogenic cyclin D1 resulting from an intragenic rearrangement (CCND1::chr11.g:70025223) as mechanisms of acquired CDK inhibitor resistance in GIST. The CCND1 rearrangement deleted the cyclin D1 C-terminal Thr286 and Thr288 residues which mediate cyclin D1 proteasomal degradation, resulting in overexpression of an abnormal cyclin D1. CDK inhibitor resistance properties were corroborated by lentiviral transduction of the CCND1 fusion gene into fusion-negative GIST, leiomyosarcoma, and breast cancer cells. These studies establish the biologic rationale for CDK2 and CDK4/6 co-inhibition as therapeutic strategy in patients with advanced GIST, including patients with metastatic GIST progressing on TKIs. In addition, these findings expand the spectrum of potential CDK inhibitor resistance mechanisms with translational potential for improving cell cycle targeted therapies in other cancer types. Citation Format: Inga-Marie Schaefer, Matthew L. Hemming, Meijun Z. Lundberg, Matthew P. Serrata, Isabel Goldaracena, Ninning Liu, Peng Yin, Joao A. Paulo, Steven P. Gygi, Suzanne George, Jeffrey A. Morgan, Monica M. Bertagnolli, Ewa T. Sicinska, Adrian Mariño-Enríquez, Jason L. Hornick, Chandrajit P. Raut, George D. Demetri, Wen-Bin Ou, Sinem K. Saka, Jonathan A. Fletcher. CDK2 and CDK4/6 inhibition in GIST: Mechanisms of response and resistance [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Sarcomas; 2022 May 9-12; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2022;28(18_Suppl):Abstract nr A013.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207