MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reversion of <i>RAS</i> mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer in the CCTG CO.26 clinical trial.

2023· article· en· W4379282782 on OpenAlexaff
Florence T.H. Wu, James T. Topham, Christopher J. O’Callaghan, Harriet Feilotter, Hagen F. Kennecke, Kimberly C. Banks, Daniel J. Renouf, Derek J. Jonker, Dongsheng Tu, Eric Xueyu Chen, Jonathan M. Loree

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkBC Cancer AgencyOttawa HospitalQueen's UniversityPancreas Centre (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homologMedicineKRASColorectal cancerInternal medicineCetuximabOncologyCancerPanitumumabMutationCancer researchGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3567 Background: RAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) drive resistance to anti-EGFR antibodies. It is unclear if RAS mutations are ever clonally lost, potentially uncovering a new therapeutic option for patients over time. Methods: We examined the temporal evolution of RAS mutation status among patients enrolled in CO.26 [ NCT02870920 ] – a phase II clinical trial that assessed durvalumab + tremelimumab in patients with heavily pretreated mCRC – using whole exome sequencing (WES) of archival primary tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing of serial plasma samples that were taken at baseline, week 8 and on progression. Results: Six out of 95 (6.3%) patients diagnosed with KRAS/ NRAS-mutated mCRC showed ‘neo- RAS-wildtype’ reversions at the time of baseline or week-8 ctDNA collection for the CO.26 trial. The majority (4/6) had falling tumor mutation burden (TMB) but stable or rising maximum mutation allele frequency (MAF) when reversions occurred. These were unlikely false negatives from non-secreting cancers as there were continued strong presence of other somatic clonal mutations (e.g., TP53, ATM). The majority (4/6) of reversions were transient, with mutations reappearing with progressive disease. ‘Neo- RAS-wildtype’ revertors had numerically longer median overall survival (OS) from date of cancer diagnosis to death compared those with persistent RAS mutations (7.7 vs. 4.2 yrs, HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.36, log-rank P= 0.26). However, ‘neo- RAS-wildtype’ revertors were earlier-stage at diagnosis compared to those with persistent RAS mutations (33% vs. 63% had synchronous metastases, χ2 P= 0.15), and had lower disease burden upon enrollment (50% vs. 68.5% had liver metastases, P= 0.17; 33% vs. 75% had > 4 lesions, P= 0.03*). Survival from stage IV diagnosis to death did not differ between those with reverted vs. persistent RAS mutations (median 3.8 vs. 3.2 yrs, HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.72, P= 0.52). ‘Neo- RAS-wildtype’ reversions were not associated with side of primary tumors ( P= 0.41), archival BRAF/MEK/ERK-mutant status ( P= 0.16, 1.00, 0.09), baseline HER2 amplifications ( P= 1.00), or baseline TMB ( P= 0.21). Conclusions: We identified a 6.3% prevalence of ‘neo- RAS-wildtype’ reversions in the CO.26 trial, however only 2.1% of patients had persistent loss when serial time points were considered. Further research is needed to understand if ‘neo- RAS-wildtype’ revertors may benefit from anti-EGFR therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02870920 .

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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