Back

PROCC: a predictive score to identify KRAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer patients who are likely to benefit from panitumumab treatment

Galmarini, C.; Zamora, R.; Gomez del Campo, P.; Castillo Izquierdo, J.; De All, J.; Dominguez, J.

2024-12-22 oncology
10.1101/2024.12.18.24319211 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPractice guidelines recommend using panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy to treat KRAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients where it was shown to significantly extend progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Still, a proportion of patients will not achieve this goal. We propose a simplified predictive score to identify patients who are likely to benefit from panitumumab treatment. MethodsNCT00364013 (TRDS) (n=460) was used as training dataset and NCT00339183 (VALDS) (n=479) as validation set. Datasets were obtained from www.projectdatasphere.org and included KRAS WT mCRC patients treated with panitumumab in combination (P/FOL) or not with FOLFOX (FOL) (TRDS) or FOLFIRI (VALDS) as 1st and 2nd line therapy. TRDS was used to generate synthetic representations (SRs) for each patient through the integration of 36 clinical and analytical features collected, respectively, during the screening phase and the first month of inclusion. These SRs were then input into a machine learning (ML) framework to identify subgroups of patients based on their similarities. The resultant subpopulations were correlated with PFS and OS. Differential variables between subgroups were identified through feature contribution analysis and included in a multivariable logistic regression model. Independent predictive factors found to be statistically significant were used to generate a predictive score of panitumumab response at baseline that was validated in VALDS. ResultsML identified two different subpopulations on the TRDS: SPA (n=162) and SPB (n=298). Only SPA patients had a lower risk of death when treated with P/FOL compared to FOL (HR 0.68 95%CI 0.48-0.99; p=.04). Patients in SPB showed no significant differences on OS between P/FOL and FOL (p=.27). Feature contribution analysis identified 15 differential features between both subpopulations. From these, CEA, ALP, LDH, and platelets were selected to create a simplified predictive score for panitumumab response ranging 0-18. When applied to TRDS, this score yielded an area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.85). A score [&ge;]8.5 was correlated to a lower risk of progression (HR 0.67 95% CI 0.47-0.97; p=.03) and death (HR 0.65 95%CI 0.43-0.98; p=.04) after P/FOL compared to FOL. No significant differences were observed for PFS and OS between P/FOL and FOL in patients with a score <8.5. The predictive score was then validated in the VALDS set with similar results (score [&ge;]8.5: PFS: HR 0.48 95%CI 0.33-0.70; p=.002; OS: HR 0.60 95%CI 0.42-0.87; p=.007; score <8.5, PFS: p=.2; OS: p=.9). ConclusionsBased on CEA, ALP, LDH and platelet baseline levels, this easily applicable predictive score might be helpful to accurately select KRAS WT mCRC patients who would benefit from addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy treatment in first- or second-line therapy. Further work is required to validate this approach in prospective cohorts of patients.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
2
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
3
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
4
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
5
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
6
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.2%
8
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.9%
9
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
10
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.6%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.3%
13
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
14
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
15
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
16
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
17
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
64 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
18
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.9%
19
Nature Cancer
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
21
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
24
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
25
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
26
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
28
The Journal of Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
29
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%