MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

What is a bad ALK? A scoping review of molecular markers of poor prognosis.

2024· review· en· W4400270477 on OpenAlexaff
Sze Wah Samuel Chan, Joy Zeng, Geoffrey Liu, Kevin Jao, Rosalyn A. Juergens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCrizotinibInternal medicineOncologyLung cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e20530 Background: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with anaplastic lymphoma kinase ( ALK) rearrangements derive a significant and durable clinical benefit from tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). However, a portion of patients have progressive disease as their best response and progress to death much earlier than expected which is termed primary resistance. This scoping review aims to summarize the known molecular mechanisms that underlie this lethal ALK phenotype. Methods: We performed a systematic scoping review from scientific databases such as Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data was extracted from the database inception to March 13, 2023. Studies included molecular markers of poor prognosis, with a focus on TP53, variant 3 re-arrangements, and reports of poor clinical response to TKIs (defined as progression-free survival less than 3 months on 1st line TKI or overall survival less than 2 years from exposure to 1st line TKI). 2nd generation and 3rd generation ALK TKI clinical trial data were also included. Results: A total of 4360 studies were screened and 136 studies were included. Numerous studies implicated the negative prognostic role of variant 3 likely mediated through the acquisition of on-target resistance mutations compared to other variants. TP53 mutations were also associated with a worse prognosis and implicated with greater chromosomal instability and mutational burden. Furthermore, reports of both variant 3 and TP53 mutations together were associated with even worse survival suggesting both molecular mechanisms combined can confer primary resistance phenotype. Other mediators of primary resistance included aberrations in cell cycle regulators such as CDKN2A/B loss, mutations in cell signalling pathways such as the PI3K/ AKT/mTOR pathway, deficiencies in DNA repair mechanisms, and uncommon fusion partners. Consistent with these prior studies, comprehensive genomic analysis from clinical trial data of 2nd generation and 3rd generation TKIs was unable to identify a singular genomic signature that underlies this lethal phenotype. However, a general trend from the literature suggested that the combination of multiple aberrations is likely necessary to confer a primary resistance phenotype, though the relative contribution of each somatic mutation likely will vary. Conclusions: This scoping review highlights that in NSCLC, the lethal ALK phenotype is likely composed of a heterogeneous population of various combinations of poor prognostic factors including variant 3, mutations in cell cycle regulators and other aberrations in cell signalling pathways. There remains an unmet need for a genomic assay to integrate all these various molecular markers to predict the lethal ALK phenotype.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0200.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.437 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→