MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluating metrics of circulating tumor DNA response and progression using a high sensitivity tumor-agnostic assay in metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6-inhibitor.

2024· article· en· W4399127309 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell J. Elliott, Jesús Fuentes‐Antrás, Sasha Main, Aaron Dou, Nancy Gregorio, Elizabeth Shah, Emily Van de Laar, Geethika Yalamanchili, Leylah Drusbosky, Caroline Weipert, Eitan Amir, Michelle B. Nadler, Celeste Yu, Hal K. Berman, Lillian L. Siu, Philippe L. Bédard, David W. Cescon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastatic breast cancerOncologyInternal medicineCirculating tumor DNACirculating tumor cellHER2 negativeCancer researchBreast cancerCancerMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1043 Background: CDK4/6-inhibitors (-i) and endocrine therapy (ET) are first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Clinical evaluation and cross-sectional imaging are used for treatment response assessment. The relationship between clinical/radiographic response and ctDNA dynamics using a high sensitivity tumor-agnostic assay is unknown in HR+/HER2- mBC. ctDNA monitoring in mBC may support clinical decision-making, enable new strategies for response assessment in clinical trials, and facilitate enrolment of patients lacking measurable disease (bone-only). Methods: Patients (pts) with HR+/HER2- mBC receiving ET and CDK4/6i were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Plasma samples were collected at baseline (BL) and regularly on-treatment. Samples were analyzed using Guardant Infinity, a tumor-agnostic genomic and epigenomic platform. ctDNA-response (-R) was defined as a ≥50% decrease (dec) in methylation tumor fraction (mTF) from BL. ctDNA-progression (-P) was defined as a <50% dec in mTF from BL or any subsequent increase in mTF above an absolute mTF of 0.001% (cohort specific definition). Imaging outcomes and dates of treatment discontinuation (TD) were collected. Results: 57 pts with 350 clinical timepoints were evaluated. Median follow up was 28.2m (range: 1.6-66.0m). 42/57 (74%) pts received palbociclib and 40/57 (70%) received an aromatase inhibitor. ctDNA-R/-P was evaluable in 49/57 patients. ctDNA-P identified within the first 90d on CDK4/6i was not prognostic of TD (p=0.7972); when assessed between 90-180d it was prognostic of early TD (med: 6.3m vs. not reached; HR: 5.17, 95%CI: 1.04-25.7; p=0.0003). 156 matched radiographic and ctDNA assessments (blood collected within 30d of CT) were evaluable for ctDNA-R/-P and imaging concordance. Excluding those with clinician-identified sclerotic bone changes suggestive of treatment effect (n=5 events), adjudicated radiographic progression did not occur in the setting of ctDNA-R (NPV: 100%, sensitivity: 100%); no pts had clinical progression in the presence of ctDNA-R. ctDNA rise in the absence of radiographic progression occurred in 13 pts; 7/13 had TD (med: 10.1m, range: 3.0-21.9m) in the follow up period reflecting a molecular lead time. Blood first monitoring, using these metrics, could have avoided 104/150 (69%) staging CT scans in this cohort. Conclusions: ctDNA dynamics are associated with clinical outcomes in HR+/HER2- mBC. The use of a high sensitivity assay permits assessment of response in nearly all patients and suggests the possibility that radiographic surveillance could be reduced in patients with ctDNA-R. Prospective validation of these findings are required. Additional ctDNA-R/-P definitions and relationship with RECIST 1.1 criteria will be presented at the meeting.

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)0.002
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.363 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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