Acquired Resistance to KRAS (G12C) Inhibition in Cancer

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of the KRAS inhibitors adagrasib and sotorasib have shown promising activity in cancers harboring KRAS glycine-to-cysteine amino acid substitutions at codon 12 (KRAS(G12C)). The mechanisms of acquired resistance to these therapies are currently unknown. METHODS: Among patients with KRAS(G12C) -mutant cancers treated with adagrasib monotherapy, we performed genomic and histologic analyses that compared pretreatment samples with those obtained after the development of resistance. Cell-based experiments were conducted to study mutations that confer resistance to KRAS(G12C) inhibitors. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were included in this study: 27 with non-small-cell lung cancer, 10 with colorectal cancer, and 1 with appendiceal cancer. Putative mechanisms of resistance to adagrasib were detected in 17 patients (45% of the cohort), of whom 7 (18% of the cohort) had multiple coincident mechanisms. Acquired KRAS alterations included G12D/R/V/W, G13D, Q61H, R68S, H95D/Q/R, Y96C, and high-level amplification of the KRAS(G12C) allele. Acquired bypass mechanisms of resistance included MET amplification; activating mutations in NRAS, BRAF, MAP2K1, and RET; oncogenic fusions involving ALK, RET, BRAF, RAF1, and FGFR3; and loss-of-function mutations in NF1 and PTEN. In two of nine patients with lung adenocarcinoma for whom paired tissue-biopsy samples were available, histologic transformation to squamous-cell carcinoma was observed without identification of any other resistance mechanisms. Using an in vitro deep mutational scanning screen, we systematically defined the landscape of KRAS mutations that confer resistance to KRAS(G12C) inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse genomic and histologic mechanisms impart resistance to covalent KRAS(G12C) inhibitors, and new therapeutic strategies are required to delay and overcome this drug resistance in patients with cancer. (Funded by Mirati Therapeutics and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03785249.)

A study protocol for applying the co-creating knowledge translation framework to a population health study

BACKGROUND: Population health research can generate significant outcomes for communities, while Knowledge Translation (KT) aims to expressly maximize the outcomes of knowledge producing activity. Yet the two approaches are seldom explicitly combined as part of the research process. A population health study in Port Lincoln, South Australia offered the opportunity to develop and apply the co-KT Framework to the entire research process. This is a new framework to facilitate knowledge formation collaboratively between researchers and communities throughout a research to intervention implementation process. DESIGN: This study employs a five step framework (the co-KT Framework) that is formulated from engaged scholarship and action research principles. By following the steps a knowledge base will be cumulatively co-created with the study population that is useful to the research aims. Step 1 is the initiating of contact between the researcher and the study contexts, and the framing of the research issue, achieved through a systematic data collection tool. Step 2 refines the research issue and the knowledge base by building into it context specific details and conducting knowledge exchange events. Step 3 involves interpreting and analysing the knowledge base, and integrating evidence to inform intervention development. In Step 4 the intervention will be piloted and evaluated. Step 5 is the completion of the research process where outcomes for improvement will be instituted as regular practice with the facilitation of the community. In summary, the model uses an iterative knowledge construction mechanism that is complemented by external evidence to design interventions to address health priorities within the community. DISCUSSION: This is a systematic approach that operationalises the translational cycle using a framework for KT practice. It begins with the local context as its foundation for knowledge creation and ends with the development of contextually applicable interventions. It will be of interest to those involved in KT research, participatory action research, population health research and health care systems studies. The co-KT Framework is a method for embedding the principles of KT into all stages of a community-based research process, in which research questions are framed by emergent data from each previous stage.Kathryn Powell, Alison Kitson, Elizabeth Hoon, Jonathan Newbury, Anne Wilson and Justin Beilb

Identification of Lysine 37 of Histone H2B as a Novel Site of Methylation

Recent technological advancements have allowed for highly-sophisticated mass spectrometry-based studies of the histone code, which predicts that combinations of post-translational modifications (PTMs) on histone proteins result in defined biological outcomes mediated by effector proteins that recognize such marks. While significant progress has been made in the identification and characterization of histone PTMs, a full appreciation of the complexity of the histone code will require a complete understanding of all the modifications that putatively contribute to it. Here, using the top-down mass spectrometry approach for identifying PTMs on full-length histones, we report that lysine 37 of histone H2B is dimethylated in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. By generating a modification-specific antibody and yeast strains that harbor mutations in the putative site of methylation, we provide evidence that this mark exist in vivo. Importantly, we show that this lysine residue is highly conserved through evolution, and provide evidence that this methylation event also occurs in higher eukaryotes. By identifying a novel site of histone methylation, this study adds to our overall understanding of the complex number of histone modifications that contribute to chromatin function

Knowledge translation within a population health study: how do you do it?

BACKGROUND Despite the considerable and growing body of knowledge translation (KT) literature, there are few methodologies sufficiently detailed to guide an integrated KT research approach for a population health study. This paper argues for a clearly articulated collaborative KT approach to be embedded within the research design from the outset. DISCUSSION Population health studies are complex in their own right, and strategies to engage the local community in adopting new interventions are often fraught with considerable challenges. In order to maximise the impact of population health research, more explicit KT strategies need to be developed from the outset. We present four propositions, arising from our work in developing a KT framework for a population health study. These cover the need for an explicit theory-informed conceptual framework; formalizing collaborative approaches within the design; making explicit the roles of both the stakeholders and the researchers; and clarifying what counts as evidence. From our deliberations on these propositions, our own co-creating (co-KT) Framework emerged in which KT is defined as both a theoretical and practical framework for actioning the intent of researchers and communities to co-create, refine, implement and evaluate the impact of new knowledge that is sensitive to the context (values, norms and tacit knowledge) where it is generated and used. The co-KT Framework has five steps. These include initial contact and framing the issue; refining and testing knowledge; interpreting, contextualising and adapting knowledge to the local context; implementing and evaluating; and finally, the embedding and translating of new knowledge into practice. SUMMARY Although descriptions of how to incorporate KT into research designs are increasing, current theoretical and operational frameworks do not generally span a holistic process from knowledge co-creation to knowledge application and implementation within one project. Population health studies may have greater health impact when KT is incorporated early and explicitly into the research design. This, we argue, will require that particular attention be paid to collaborative approaches, stakeholder identification and engagement, the nature and sources of evidence used, and the role of the research team working with the local study community.Alison Kitson, Kathryn Powell, Elizabeth Hoon, Jonathan Newbury, Anne Wilson, Justin Beilb

Genetic Testing to Inform Epilepsy Treatment Management From an International Study of Clinical Practice

IMPORTANCE: It is currently unknown how often and in which ways a genetic diagnosis given to a patient with epilepsy is associated with clinical management and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how genetic diagnoses in patients with epilepsy are associated with clinical management and outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients referred for multigene panel testing between March 18, 2016, and August 3, 2020, with outcomes reported between May and November 2020. The study setting included a commercial genetic testing laboratory and multicenter clinical practices. Patients with epilepsy, regardless of sociodemographic features, who received a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant were included in the study. Case report forms were completed by all health care professionals. EXPOSURES: Genetic test results. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical management changes after a genetic diagnosis (ie, 1 P/LP variant in autosomal dominant and X-linked diseases; 2 P/LP variants in autosomal recessive diseases) and subsequent patient outcomes as reported by health care professionals on case report forms. RESULTS: Among 418 patients, median (IQR) age at the time of testing was 4 (1-10) years, with an age range of 0 to 52 years, and 53.8% (n = 225) were female individuals. The mean (SD) time from a genetic test order to case report form completion was 595 (368) days (range, 27-1673 days). A genetic diagnosis was associated with changes in clinical management for 208 patients (49.8%) and usually (81.7% of the time) within 3 months of receiving the result. The most common clinical management changes were the addition of a new medication (78 [21.7%]), the initiation of medication (51 [14.2%]), the referral of a patient to a specialist (48 [13.4%]), vigilance for subclinical or extraneurological disease features (46 [12.8%]), and the cessation of a medication (42 [11.7%]). Among 167 patients with follow-up clinical information available (mean [SD] time, 584 [365] days), 125 (74.9%) reported positive outcomes, 108 (64.7%) reported reduction or elimination of seizures, 37 (22.2%) had decreases in the severity of other clinical signs, and 11 (6.6%) had reduced medication adverse effects. A few patients reported worsening of outcomes, including a decline in their condition (20 [12.0%]), increased seizure frequency (6 [3.6%]), and adverse medication effects (3 [1.8%]). No clinical management changes were reported for 178 patients (42.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that genetic testing of individuals with epilepsy may be materially associated with clinical decision-making and improved patient outcomes

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations