MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of molecular response and progression in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors using a high-sensitivity tumor-informed assay.

2024· article· en· W4399667405 on OpenAlexaff
Jesús Fuentes‐Antrás, Mitchell J. Elliott, Sasha Main, Philippe Echelard, Aaron Dou, Philippe L. Bédard, Eitan Amir, Michelle B. Nadler, Nancy Gregorio, Elizabeth Shah, Emily Van de Laar, Celeste Yu, Lisa Gates, Clodagh Murray, Christopher Gareth Smith, A. Chevalier, Scott V. Bratman, Lillian L. Siu, Hal K. Berman, David W. Cescon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncologyMetastatic breast cancerInternal medicineBreast cancerCancerEndocrine systemHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3052 Background: Tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays, designed to track patient (pt) specific variants identified by tumor sequencing, offer enhanced sensitivity compared to traditional assays focused on driver genes. This approach enables precise ctDNA quantification, facilitating early detection of molecular progression and innovative strategies in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Methods: HR+/HER2- mBC pts receiving standard endocrine therapy + CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDKi) were enrolled in a prospective observational cohort (2018–2023). Plasma samples were collected at baseline (BL), within 30 days (d) and ~q3 months with restaging scans. Archival tumor WES was used to design personalized panels for ctDNA monitoring. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF). Results: Of 51 pts analyzed (median age 60 years [range 38-88], 1/2L [75/20%], visceral disease 63%, palbo-/ribo-/abemaciclib 76/22/2%), tumor-informed panels were successfully designed for 43 (1 failed WES, 7 failed QC), detecting BL ctDNA in 39 (91%). The median BL estimated variant allele fraction (eVAF) was 0.5% (0.006–17.9) and was associated with liver metastases but no other covariates (e.g. bone-only disease, history of 1ry endocrine resistance [ER]). Higher BL eVAF predicted shorter TTF (HR 1.14 CI 95% 1.05–1.23, p<0.01). Most pts had eVAF decreases below BL in the first 30 d (78%) and before the first scan (89%; median 90 d, 23–158). Early increases above BL did not significantly predict TTF, with 3/8 cases showing prolonged responses. ctDNA clearance was observed in 11/39 (28%) pts at a median of 172 d (14–410) and predicted longer TTF (HR 0.06, CI 95% 0.01–0.45, p<0.01; median TTF not reached vs 14.5 mo for pts with and without clearance), with treatment failure (TF) rates of 0% vs 40%, and 8% vs 80%, at the 1- and 2-year landmarks, respectively. Clearance was not associated with any clinical covariate (i.e. disease sites, therapy line, CDKi, history of 1ry ER). For any sample irrespective of the trajectory, higher eVAF ratios to BL predicted shorter lead times to TF, though with poor correlation (r 2 0.08, p=0.01). eVAF ratios to BL >1, >0.5 and <0.5 at any timepoint had median lead times to TF of 76 d (Q1–Q3 25–135), 133 d (41–360), and 326 d (174–471). A complete analysis of ctDNA dynamics and operating parameters will be presented along with RECIST 1.1 evaluation and WES-based genomic subgroups. Conclusions: ctDNA levels and changes on therapy are prognostic and high sensitivity tumor-informed assays expand the proportion of pts who can be monitored. ctDNA clearance identified pts with better outcome and might inform pt follow up and interventional strategies. Reappraisal of existing early response cutoffs, with limited precision for individual decision making, may be necessary with more sensitive assays.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 teacher head, 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 OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207