MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis of outcomes in resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare targetable driver mutations.

2024· article· en· W4400109132 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia Ghazali, Jamie Feng, Katrina Hueniken, Thomas K. Waddell, Kazuhiro Yasufuku, Andrew Pierre, Laura Donahoe, Elliot Wakeam, Marcelo Cypel, Jonathan Yeung, Shaf Keshavjee, Marc de Perrot, Natasha B. Leighl, Geoffrey Liu, Penelope Ann Bradbury, Adrian G. Sacher, Lawson Eng, Tracy Stockley, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKRASMedicineStage (stratigraphy)OncologyInternal medicineHazard ratioAdenocarcinomaROS1CohortChemotherapyLung cancerProportional hazards modelCancerConfidence intervalColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8052 Background: As postoperative adjuvant NSCLC treatment has evolved with EGFR and ALK targeted therapies, consideration may be given to treating other NSCLC with targetable mutations. Thus, having baseline outcomes for early-stage NSCLC with these targetable mutations is crucial, given their rarity. This study reports on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with resected NSCLC with treatable rare driver mutations. Methods: A retrospective single centre study identified stage I-III NSCLC patients with rare targetable mutations who underwent curative surgery. Tissue based next-generation sequencing identified mutations in KRAS G12C, EGFR Exon20, ERBB2, ALK, ROS1, BRAFV600E, MET exon14 skipping, RET. Baseline characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy, mutation subtype, and TP53 co-mutation were correlated with RFS and OS using Cox regression. The KRAS G12C cohort was used as the reference for survival comparisons. Results: Among 201 patients (mean age: 66.4, 63% female) 61% had stage I, 19% stage II, 20% stage III. Predominant histology was adenocarcinoma (95%) and lobectomy (77%) was the most common surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was given to 37% (median 4 cycles). Mutations identified included: KRAS G12C (87, 43%), EGFR Exon 20 (27, 13%), ERBB2 (23, 11%), MET (20, 10%), ALK (14, 7%), ROS1 (13, 6%), BRAF (10, 5%) and RET (5, 2%). For all patients, 5-year survival probabilities were 75% stage I, 56% stage II (Hazard ratio [HR]: 2.17, p=0.038), 55% for stage III (HR: 2.38, p=0.015). Stage was also a significant predictor of RFS: stage II (HR: 1.90, p=0.04), stage III (HR: 2.26, p=0.006) vs stage I. TP53 co-mutation was associated with poorer OS (stage-adjusted HR (aHR): 2.50, p=0.004) and RFS (aHR: 1.70, p=0.037). All patients with rare mutations had shorter RFS compared to those with KRAS G12C mutation (Table). The difference for ERBB2 was significant (aHR 2.26, p=0.014), with only 37% of patients relapse free at 5 years. In contrast, except for ERBB2, other mutations were associated with better OS, with fusion mutations having the greatest difference (aHR 0.24, p=0.021). ERBB2 mutation had the highest cumulative incidence of brain metastasis, 29% at 5 years. Conclusions: Despite consistently poorer RFS, our study shows that, with the exception of ERBB2, OS of all other rare mutations was superior to KRAS G12C mutated NSCLC. TP53 co-mutation was demonstrated to be prognostic of poorer outcome. These dichotomous results may be explained by the use of targeted treatments at relapse, and suggest a potential role of targeted agents in the adjuvant setting. [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 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)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.421 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→