Prediction of Adjuvant Gemcitabine Sensitivity in Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Using the GemPred RNA Signature: An Ancillary Study of the PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE GemPred, a transcriptomic signature predictive of the efficacy of adjuvant gemcitabine (GEM), was developed from cell lines and organoids and validated retrospectively. The phase III PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 trial has demonstrated the superiority of modified folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) over GEM as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at the expense of higher toxicity. We evaluated the potential predictive value of GemPred in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS Routine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded surgical specimens of 350 patients were retrieved for RNA sequencing and GemPred prediction (167 in the GEM arm and 183 in the mFOLFIRINOX [mFFX] arm). Survival analyses were stratified by resection margins, lymph node status, and cancer antigen 19-9 level. RESULTS Eighty-nine patients' tumors (25.5%) were GemPred+ and were thus predicted to be gemcitabine-sensitive. In the GEM arm, GemPred+ patients (n = 50, 30%) had a significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) than GemPred– patients (n = 117, 70%; median 27.3 v 10.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.65]; P < .001) and cancer-specific survival (CSS; median 68.4 v 28.6 months, HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.27 to 0.66]; P < .001). GemPred had no prognostic value in the mFFX arm. DFS and CSS were similar in GemPred+ patients who received adjuvant GEM and mFFX (median 27.3 v 24.0 months, and 68.4 v 51.4 months, respectively). The statistical interaction between GEM and GemPred+ status was significant for DFS ( P = .008) and CSS ( P = .004). GemPred+ patients had significantly more adverse events of grade ≥3 in the mFFX arm (76%) compared with those in the GEM arm (40%; P = .001). CONCLUSION This ancillary study of a phase III randomized trial demonstrates that among the quarter of patients with a GemPred-positive transcriptomic signature, survival was comparable with that of mFOLFIRINOX, whereas those receiving adjuvant gemcitabine had fewer adverse events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".