MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Longitudinal mutational analysis of <i>TP53</i> in plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients (pts) with solid tumors in a phase I study of BI 907828, an MDM2–p53 antagonist.

2023· article· en· W4379283294 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Peltzer, Raphael Hesse, Mrinal M. Gounder, Noboru Yamamoto, Manish R. Patel, Scott A. Laurie, Todd M. Bauer, Michael Teufel, Junxian Geng, Patricia LoRusso

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCirculating tumor DNAMdm2Internal medicineSomatic cellOncologyMutationCancer researchGeneCancerGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3036 Background: Inactivation of p53 can occur due to TP53 mutations or downregulation of wild-type p53 by its primary negative regulator, MDM2. Targeting the MDM2–p53 interaction may therefore restore p53 function. BI 907828, a highly potent MDM2–p53 antagonist, is being evaluated in a phase Ia/b study in pts with advanced solid tumors (NCT03449381). During dose escalation (phase Ia), BI 907828 demonstrated a manageable safety profile and early signs of efficacy. Here we present data from a longitudinal mutational analysis of TP53 using ctDNA. The objective of the analysis was to identify if mutations in TP53 can be associated with possible acquired resistance to BI 907828. Methods: Collection of blood samples for ctDNA analyses was optional and sampled longitudinally from pts at baseline and every cycle until end of treatment (EoT). ctDNA was purified from plasma and analyzed using tumor-specific next generation sequencing (NGS; custom-made 8-gene panel using KAPA HyperCap technology, including TP53) to identify tumor-derived somatic mutations that may be relevant to understanding resistance mechanisms to BI 907828. The limit of detection was determined to be 0.5% mutant allele frequency; common polymorphisms were filtered out. Results: Plasma samples for ctDNA analysis were available from 44/54 (81%) pts enrolled to phase Ia. Baseline plasma samples from 26/54 (48%) pts and EoT samples from 41/54 (76%) pts were analyzed. Mutations were found in 6/26 (23%) samples at baseline. In 2 pt samples, mutations were found in both tumor and ctDNA, but concordant results were limited to 1 pt. At EoT, no (0) mutations were found in 16/41 (39%) samples, 1 mutation in 11/41 (27%), 2 mutations in 6/41 (15%), 3 mutations in 2/41 (5%) and 4 mutations in 6/41 (15%). No sample had more than 4 mutations. The most frequent mutation at EoT (in 9/41 [22%] samples) was R175H, a known p53 loss of function (LOF) mutation, followed by R248Q/W LOF (in 6/41 [15%) samples). Mutations in non- TP53 genes were detectable independent of TP53 mutation status, suggesting ctDNA was present in all samples. No clear association of induction of mutations could be identified for any BI 907828 dose or dosing schedule, treatment duration, or tumor type. 9/20 (45%) pts with no detectable mutations at baseline maintained wild-type TP53 status at EoT. Signs of efficacy were observed in pts with acquired TP53 LOF mutations, suggesting that these mutations have no effect on efficacy. Analysis of TP53 mutational status at EoT in conjunction with correlative clinical efficacy will be presented. Conclusions: This mutation analysis represents one of the most comprehensive assessments of longitudinal ctDNA by NGS for TP53 from a clinical trial of an MDM2–p53 antagonist. Preliminary data suggest that BI 907828 does not systematically lead to broad acquisition of resistance by inducing alterations in TP53. Clinical trial information: NCT03449381 .

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.426
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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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