MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312114052 · doi:10.7554/elife.73288

Predicting progression-free survival after systemic therapy in advanced head and neck cancer: Bayesian regression and model development

2022· article· en· W4312114052 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul R. Barber, Rami Mustapha, Fabian Flores‐Borja, Giovanna Alfano, Kenrick Ng, Gregory Weitsman, Luigi Dolcetti, Ali Abdulnabi Suwaidan, Felix Wong, José M. Vicencio, Myria Galazi, James W. Opzoomer, James N. Arnold, Selvam Thavaraj, Shahram Kordasti, Jana Doyle, Jon Greenberg, Magnus T. Dillon, Kevin J. Harrington, Martin Förster, A C C Coolen, Tony Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilInstitute of Cancer ResearchMedical Research CouncilDaiichi Sankyo EuropeRosetrees TrustUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustKing's Health PartnersUniversity College LondonKing's College LondonCancer Research InstituteDepartment of Health and Social CareInnovative Health InitiativeNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchImperial Experimental Cancer Medicine CentreCancer Research UK
KeywordsOncologyInternal medicineMedicineHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaCovariateCetuximabProportional hazards modelCohortHead and neck cancerCancerColorectal cancerMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is associated with a poor prognosis, and biomarkers that predict response to treatment are highly desirable. The primary aim was to predict progression-free survival (PFS) with a multivariate risk prediction model. Methods: Experimental covariates were derived from blood samples of 56 HNSCC patients which were prospectively obtained within a Phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02633800) at baseline and after the first treatment cycle of combined platinum-based chemotherapy with cetuximab treatment. Clinical and experimental covariates were selected by Bayesian multivariate regression to form risk scores to predict PFS. Results: A ‘baseline’ and a ‘combined’ risk prediction model were generated, each of which featuring clinical and experimental covariates. The baseline risk signature has three covariates and was strongly driven by baseline percentage of CD33 + CD14 + HLADR high monocytes. The combined signature has six covariates, also featuring baseline CD33 + CD14 + HLADR high monocytes but is strongly driven by on-treatment relative change of CD8 + central memory T cells percentages. The combined model has a higher predictive power than the baseline model and was successfully validated to predict therapeutic response in an independent cohort of nine patients from an additional Phase 2 trial (NCT03494322) assessing the addition of avelumab to cetuximab treatment in HNSCC. We identified tissue counterparts for the immune cells driving the models, using imaging mass cytometry, that specifically colocalized at the tissue level and correlated with outcome. Conclusions: This immune-based combined multimodality signature, obtained through longitudinal peripheral blood monitoring and validated in an independent cohort, presents a novel means of predicting response early on during the treatment course. Funding: Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Cancer Research UK, EU IMI2 IMMUCAN, UK Medical Research Council, European Research Council (335326), Merck Serono. Cancer Research Institute, National Institute for Health Research, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research. Clinical trial number: NCT02633800 .

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207