MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) monitoring identify additional acquired actionable alterations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)?

2023· article· en· W4379334471 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Loree, Adrian Bubie, John H. Strickler, Leylah Drusbosky, Scott Kopetz, Kanwal Raghav

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndelKRASColorectal cancerMedicineNeuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homologSomatic cellMicrosatellite instabilityCancer researchLiquid biopsyOncologyGenotypeV600ECirculating tumor DNACancerMutationInternal medicineAlleleSingle-nucleotide polymorphismBiologyGeneticsGeneMicrosatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3540 Background: Traditionally, biomarker ascertainment occurred once for patients (pts) with mCRC. An advantage of ctDNA is the ease of repeated assessments. However, real-world evidence about the value of serial ctDNA in revealing actionable alterations is needed. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 3350 pts with mCRC and a Guardant360 ctDNA assay (Guardant Health) revealing ≥1 somatic alteration who underwent ≥1 subsequent Guardant360 test to compare detection of mutations (mut: single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and indels), amplifications (amps), fusions, microsatellite instability (MSI), and blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB). Variants were filtered to pt-specific levels of detection by limiting variants across assays to those above a 0.1% mutant allele frequency (MAF) threshold on the serial test with the lowest somatic MAF for that pt. Clonal muts were defined as those at ≥10% of max MAF per sample. Results: A total of 9130 assays (mean of 2.7 assays/pt) occurring a median of 165 days apart were evaluated. Among 1476 pts initially with no alteration in MAPK pathway genes ( RAS and EGFR SNV or indel, BRAF V600E SNV, or ERBB2/ MET amplifications), 382 (25.8%) acquired a MAPK alteration on their second test. More gains were clonal than subclonal (231:151, 60.5%:39.5%). In pts with a subsequent assay after an acquisition (N = 80), 12 (15.0%) clonal and 15 (18.8%) subclonal acquisitions disappeared in the third assay, a median of 150 days later. Among alterations with a therapy, KRAS G12C/D, BRAF V600E, and ERBB2 amps acquisitions occurred at any later assay in 84/1476 (5.7%), 29/1476 (2%), and 21/1476 (1.4%) pts without an initial MAPK alteration, respectively. Of these, 84/134 (62.6%) emerged without another concurrent MAPK alteration, 61/84 (72.6%) of which are subclonal. Of 92 fusions noted in 86 pts, 87/92 (94.5%) were subclonal and only 28/92 (30.4%) were initially present. The majority of fusions were acquired de-novo subclonal fusions (58/64, 90.6%) but 2 pre-existing subclonal fusions subsequently became clonal. Among pts evaluable for MSI, 56/3030 (1.8%) were initially MSI-H and 30 (1%) subsequently had MSI detected on a future assay. New MSI detection was more common in pts with DNA repair muts ( BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM/CHEK2/MLH1/RAD51D) on an initial assay (OR 7.52, 95% CI 3.39-16.69, P < 0.0001). Among pts evaluable for bTMB, 60/1387 (4.3%) initially had bTMB≥20 muts/Mb, and 256/1327 (19.3%) subsequently rose above 20 muts/Mb on a future assay, a median of 417 days after initial assay. Rising bTMB associated with rising max somatic MAF (Spearman rho = 0.50, P < 0.0001). Pts with DNA repair muts on an initial assay were more likely to have bTMB rise to ≥20 muts/Mb (OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.81-3.68, P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this large mCRC cohort, serial ctDNA appears to be a feasible approach to identify acquired alterations with therapeutic implications.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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