MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Correlation of urinary comprehensive genomic profile with risk of recurrence of BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer treated with atezolizumab in SWOG S1605.

2024· article· en· W4391303459 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Pier St-Laurent, Melissa Plets, Peter C. Black, Parminder Singh, David J. McConkey, Scott Lucia, Vadim S. Koshkin, Kelly Stratton, Trinity J. Bivalacqua, Wassim Kassouf, Sima P. Porten, Rick Bangs, Catherine M. Tangen, Ian M. Thompson, Joshua J. Meeks, Vincent M. Caruso, Kevin G. Phillips, Vincent T. Bicocca, Trevor G. Levin, Seth P. Lerner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerCystectomyAtezolizumabOncologyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelUrinary systemUrologyCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

529 Background: Radical cystectomy is recommended for patients with BCG-unresponsive (BU) non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) due to high risk of progression. Improved methods for assessing these risks would greatly facilitate the potential for bladder preservation. Here, we tested the capacity of the urinary comprehensive genomic profile (uCGP) to predict event-free survival (EFS) in patients with BU-NMIBC treated with atezolizumab in the single arm phase 2 trial SWOG S1605. Methods: Urine was collected from patients with BU NMIBC (CIS, Ta, T1) treated with at least one dose of intravenous atezolizumab at baseline and before the 5th cycle of therapy (3 months). The uCGP was assessed using UroAmp (Convergent Genomics). Risk scores for recurrence at baseline and at 3 months were calculated by a prespecified machine learning algorithm incorporating alterations in 60 genes and low pass whole genome sequencing, and categorized as high versus low. Molecular response was classified based on change in uCGP between the two time points. Risk scores and molecular response were submitted to SWOG for clinical correlation with EFS using a Cox model, adjusting for CIS status. Time to event was calculated from date of study entry (baseline risk) or from the 2nd collection time (3-month risk) to first high grade (HG) recurrence or persistent CIS at 3 months. Death unrelated to bladder cancer and patients last known to be alive without HG recurrence were censored at date of last visit. Results: Samples were provided at baseline in 89 patients and before the 5th cycle in 77; 68 had both samples available for paired analysis. The risk score at baseline was classified as high in 69% of samples (73% for CIS ±Ta/T1 and 62% for Ta/T1). At 12 and 18 months the EFS probabilities were 26% and 23% for high-risk and 67% and 51% for low-risk patients, respectively, with a HR of 2.82 (95% CI: 1.58, 5.03; p<0.001). The risk score at the 3-month timepoint was classified as high in 81% of samples, and the EFS probabilities at 12 and 18 months after urine collection were 26% and 22% for high-risk and 80% and 72% for low-risk patients, respectively, with a HR of 3.39 (95% CI: 1.41, 8.13; p<0.006). Molecular response to treatment was classified as complete (CR) in 8%, partial (PR) in 14%, stable (SD) in 25% and progression (PD) in 46%, with 7% having no detectable genomic abnormalities at both time points. Clinical recurrence was observed by 18 months in 0/6 patients with CR, 7/9 (78%) with PR, 11/14 (79%) with SD and 25/33 (76%) with PD by genomic profile. Conclusions: This study suggests that uCGP at baseline and after 4 cycles of treatment can identify genomic patterns associated with an increased risk of HG persistence, recurrence or progression in BU NMIBC treated with immune checkpoint inhibition. Future studies will determine if this can be used to guide early treatment intensification.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→