MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative analysis of <i>PIK3CA</i> mutation detection methods in the first-in-human phase 1/1b study of inavolisib.

2025· article· en· W4410819589 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Hilz, Melissa Accordino, Philippe L. Bédard, Andrés Cervantes, Valentina Gambardella, Erika Hamilton, Antoîne Italiano, Komal Jhaveri, Dejan Juric, Kevin Kalinsky, Ian E. Krop, Mafalda Oliveira, C. Saura Manich, Peter Schmid, Junko Aimi, Stephanie Royer‐Joo, Jennifer L. Schutzman, Katherine E. Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersGenentech
KeywordsMedicineMutationOncologyInternal medicineComputational biologyGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e13058 Background: Mutations (mut) in the alpha catalytic subunit of PI3K (p110α, PIK3CA gene) occur in ~35-40% of patients with HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Until the recent approvals of therapies targeting PI3K/AKT, PIK3CA mut screening was not included in breast cancer clinical biomarker testing guidelines, and cross-assay concordance studies are limited. Here, we compared PIK3CA mut detection among blood and tissue-based PCR and NGS assays used in the first-in-human phase I/Ib trial (NCT03006172) of the recently FDA-approved p110α-inhibitor, inavolisib. Methods: Biomarker eligibility required at least 1 of 17 oncogenic amino acid substitutions in PIK3CA , determined by blood- or tissue-based PCR or NGS testing performed locally at participating sites (184/190 [96.8%] patients) or by Sponsor central testing of tumor tissue with the cobas PIK3CA Mutation Test (cobas PCR) (6/190 [3.2%]). For concordance analyses, available archival or fresh tumor tissue was retrospectively sequenced with the cobas PCR test (n = 111) and/or FoundationOne (n = 155); available pre-study plasma-derived circulating tumor (ct)DNA was sequenced with the FoundationACT or FoundationOne Liquid CDx (n = 131) NGS assays at Foundation Medicine, Inc (FMI ctDNA). Overall concordance – agreement + disagreement for detection of a study-eligible PIK3CA mut between assays – is reported, unless noted otherwise. Results: PIK3CA mut status was confirmed by central cobas PCR for 97/111 (87.4%) local test enrolled patients: 71.4% (10/14) for blood-based tests; 90.2% (46/51) for tissue-based tests; 100% (20/20) for tissue-based PCR; 80.8% (21/26) for other tests. For 14 participants for whom the locally determined PIK3CA mut status was not centrally confirmed, the type of local test included NGS on tissue (5/14), NGS on blood (3/14), PCR on blood (1/14), and unspecified (5/14). PIK3CA mut detection concordance between cobas PCR and FoundationOne tissue testing was 96.2% (100/104). Concordance between cobas PCR and FMI ctDNA testing was 81.1% (77/95). Similarly, the concordance between FoundationOne and FMI ctDNA testing was 80.2% (85/106). Among 18 patients with discordant results between cobas PCR and FMI ctDNA, discrepancies were not attributed to a single assay, with 11 detected by cobas PCR but not FMI ctDNA, and 7 by FMI ctDNA but not cobas PCR. Conclusions: These results, albeit from a small study, demonstrate the ability of both tissue- and blood-based PCR and NGS assays to robustly identify a similar patient population with PIK3CA mut HR+, HER2- mBC, who may benefit from an inavolisib-based therapy regimen. Differences in PIK3CA mut detection concordance between tissue- vs. blood-based assays may reflect mutational profiling of a single-biopsied lesion vs. a multi-lesion representative blood sample, or insufficient ctDNA shedding; reflex testing on an alternative sample may prove useful in such cases.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.639
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207