Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), treatment outcomes and adverse events in gastrointestinal cancers: A pooled analysis of clinical trial and real-world data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
169 Background: Clonal hematopoesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is the acquisition of somatic mutations leading to clonal expansion of hematopoietic stem cells and is a common incidental finding in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Inflammation from these cells or a reduced marrow reserve may impact treatment outcomes or adverse events. We investigated the incidence of CHIP in ctDNA from patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers and explored its association with outcomes and adverse events (AEs). Methods: We collected ctDNA results from a local prospective metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) cohort (PREDICT-L) and ctDNA data from two randomized trials: CCTG CO.26 (durvalumab + tremelimumab [D+T] or best supportive care [BSC] in mCRC) and CCTG PA.7 (gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel [GN] with or without D+T in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma [mPDAC]). CHIP+ was defined as the presence of a variant of ≥2% variant allele frequency annotated in the ctDNA report in any of the genes DNMT3A, TET2, ASXL1 and ATM, and not annotated as germline by respective sequencing platforms. The first line of treatment after ctDNA was reviewed, and grade ≥3 or dose-limiting adverse events were documented. Results: The prevalence of CHIP varied from 10% to 18% (see table). CHIP+ patients were older than CHIP- in the CO.26 cohort (p=0.011), and ECOG was higher in CHIP+ patients in the PREDICT-L cohort. There was no difference between CHIP+/- patients with regards to sex. DNMT3A was the gene most frequently mutated in all three cohorts. There was no significant difference in PFS or OS between the CHIP+/- groups, both in those treated with chemotherapy (Chemo) or immunotherapy (IO). The most common AEs were rash, GI toxicities and bleeding/clotting abnormalities. There was no significant difference in the rates of AEs between the CHIP+/- groups for those treated with Chemo or IO. Conclusions: CHIP is a common alteration in ctDNA but did not impact PFS, OS, or the chance of developing an AE. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".