RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Generalized Evolutionary Classifier for Evolutionary Guided Precision Medicine
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.24.20201111
DO 10.1101/2020.09.24.20201111
A1 McCoy, Matthew
A1 Yeang, Chen-Hsiang
A1 Parashar, Deepak
A1 Beckman, Robert A.
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/22/2020.09.24.20201111.abstract
AB Background Current precision medicine (CPM) matches patients to therapies, utilizing traditional biomarker classifiers. Dynamic precision medicine (DPM) is an evolutionary guided precision medicine (EGPM) approach that specifically accounts for intratumoral genetic heterogeneity and evolutionary dynamics. DPM adapts as frequently as every six weeks, plans proactively for future resistance development, and incorporates multiple therapeutic agents. Simulations indicate that DPM can double mean and median survival and significantly improve long-term survival in a cohort of 3 million virtual patients representing a pan-oncology spectrum. Given the cost and invasiveness of monitoring subclones frequently in the DPM paradigm, we sought to determine the value of a DPM window study of only two six-week adaptations (“moves”).Methods 3 million virtual patients, differing in DPM input parameters of initial subclonal compositions, drug sensitivities, and growth and mutational kinetics, were simulated as previously described. Each virtual patient was treated with CPM, DPM, and DPM for two moves followed by CPM.Results The first two DPM moves provide similar benefit to a five-year, 40-move sequence in the full virtual population. In simulations, if the first two moves are identical for DPM and CPM, patients will not benefit from DPM (89% negative predictive value). The patient subset (20%) in which two-move and 40-move DPM sequences are closely similar in outcome has extraordinary predicted benefit (HR-DPM/CPM 0.04).Conclusions The first two DPM moves provide most of the clinical benefit of DPM, reducing the duration of required subclonal monitoring. This leads to an evolutionary classifier (EC) that selects patients who will benefit, i.e. those in whom DPM and CPM recommendations differ early. This EC development paradigm may apply to other EGPM approaches despite different underlying assumptions.CONTEXT SUMMARYKey objective: Current precision medicine (CPM) performs static matching of biomarker classifiers to therapies. We asked, using computer simulation, whether dynamic precision medicine (DPM), a highly adaptive and proactive evolutionary guided precision medicine (EGPM) paradigm, could benefit patients with only two six-week adaptive treatment periods (“moves”), and still enhance long term survival by preventing late term relapses.Knowledge generated: Two moves of DPM were highly effective, nearly as effective as 40 moves in the full population. Patients for whom DPM and CPM recommend the same treatment sequence for the first two moves will likely not benefit from DPM.Relevance: A 2-move DPM paradigm is far more cost-effective and less invasive than a 40-move paradigm, and opens up the neoadjuvant period for studying DPM. The findings establish an evolutionary classifier (EC) for selecting patients who will benefit from DPM. This general approach to developing an EC may work for other EGPM.Competing Interest StatementRAB consults for or has recently consulted for AstraZeneca, CStone, EMD Serono, Vertex, and Zymeworks. He is the Chief Scientific Officer of Onco-Mind. The other authors declare no competing interests.Funding StatementSupported in part by The Royal Society International Exchanges Award to DP and RAB, and by Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Breakthrough AwardAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Theoretical/Computational Study, no real patients were used, and no IRB was necessary.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data from the study is derived from computational simulations, the methods for their generation and recreation are provided in Beckman et. al., PNAS (2012) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203559109