MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400073956 · doi:10.1200/po.24.00092

Clinical Utility of Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Testing to Inform Treatment Decisions for Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors in a Tertiary Care Center

2024· article· en· W4400073956 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lucia Bogdan, Ramy Saleh, Lisa Avery, Samanta Del Rossi, Celeste Yu, Philippe L. Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Precision Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersSeagenGilead SciencesSanofiGenentechGovernment of OntarioAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbGlaxoSmithKlinePrincess Margaret Cancer FoundationAmgen
KeywordsTertiary careSolid tumorCenter (category theory)Medical physicsMedicinePatient careOncologyInternal medicineNursingCancerChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE There is limited information about the clinical utility of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel testing to inform decision making for patients with advanced solid tumors. The Ontario-wide Cancer Targeted Nucleic Acid Evaluation (OCTANE) is a prospective study that enrolled more than 4,500 patients with solid tumor for NGS panel testing. We performed a retrospective survey of medical oncologists to evaluate the impact of NGS testing on treatment decisions. METHODS Patients and treating oncologists were identified at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center between 2016 and 2021. Tumor-only sequencing was performed using a gene panel of either 555 or 161 cancer genes. Oncologists were asked to review testing results and complete a survey indicating whether NGS testing affected treatment decisions. The primary outcome of this study was rate of treatment change on the basis of mutation results. Patient, test, and physician factors were evaluated for association with treatment changes using univariate analyses and a mixed-effects model. RESULTS Of the 582 surveys sent, 394 (67.7%) were completed. We found that 188 (47.7%) patients had testing results classified as actionable by the oncologist and 62 (15.7%) patients were matched to treatment, of whom 37 (60%) were enrolled in a clinical trial, 13 (21%) received an approved drug, four (6%) were prescribed off-label therapy, and eight (13%) avoided ineffective treatment. Patient, test, and physician characteristics were not significantly associated with treatment change. There was no difference in overall survival between patients who received matched treatment versus those who did not ( P = .55, median survival not reached). CONCLUSION OCTANE testing led to a change in drug treatment in 15.7% of patients, supporting the clinical utility of NGS panel testing for patients with advanced solid tumors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Precision OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207