MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group included 105 patients with CP, with the age of the disease onset under 40 years old (the average age of onset was 26.9 years). The control group consisted of 76 persons without clinical signs of pancreatitis. The diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis in patients was made on the basis of clinical manifestations and the results of laboratory and instrumental investigations. Genetic examination of patients was conducted using the next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology and included targeted sequencing of all exons and exon-intron boundaries of the PRSS1, SPINK1, CTRC, CFTR, and CPA1 genes. The genotyping of the rs61734659 locus of the PRSS2 gene was also conducted.
RESULTS: Genetic risk factors of the CP development were found in 61% of patients. Pathogenic and likely-pathogenic variants associated with the risk of CP development were identified in the following genes: CTRC (37.1% of patients), CFTR (18.1%), SPINK1 (8.6%), PRSS1 (8.6%), and CPA1 (6.7%). The frequent gene variants in Russian patients with CP were as follows: CTRC gene - c.180C>T (rs497078), c.760C>T (rs121909293), c.738_761del24 (rs746224507); cumulative odds ratio (OR) for all risk alleles was 1.848 (95% CI: 1.054-3.243); CFTR gene - c.3485G>T (rs1800120), c.1521_1523delCTT (p.Phe508del, rs113993960), and c.650A>G (rs121909046); OR=2.432 (95% CI: 1.066-5.553). In the SPINK1, PRSS1, and CPA1 genes, pathogenic variants were found only in the group of patients with CP. The frequent variants of the SPINK1 gene include c.101A>G (p.Asn34Ser, rs17107315) and c.194+2T>C (rs148954387); of the PRSS1 gene - c.86A>T (p.Asn29Ile, rs111033566); of the CPA1 gene - c.586-30C>T (rs782335525) and c.696+23_696+24delGG. The OR for the CP development for the c.180TT genotype (rs497078) CTRC according to the recessive model (TT vs. CT+CC) was 7.05 (95% CI: 0.86-263, p=0.011). In the CTRC gene, the variant c.493+49G>C (rs6679763) appeared to be benign, the c.493+51C>A (rs10803384) variant was frequently detected among both the diseased and healthy persons and did not demonstrate a protective effect. The protective factor c.571G>A (p.Gly191Arg, rs61734659) of the PRSS2 gene was detected only in the group of healthy individuals and confirmed its protective role. 12.4% of the patients with CP had risk factors in 2 or 3 genes.
CONCLUSION: Sequencing of the coding regions of the PRSS1, SPINK1, CTRC, CFTR, and CPA1 genes allowed to identify genetic risk factors of the CP development in 61% of cases. Determining the genetic cause of CP helps to predict the disease course, perform preventive measures in the proband's relatives, and facilitate a personalized treatment of the patient in future.
RESULTS: We present an automated gene prediction pipeline, Seqping that uses self-training HMM models and transcriptomic data. The pipeline processes the genome and transcriptome sequences of the target species using GlimmerHMM, SNAP, and AUGUSTUS pipelines, followed by MAKER2 program to combine predictions from the three tools in association with the transcriptomic evidence. Seqping generates species-specific HMMs that are able to offer unbiased gene predictions. The pipeline was evaluated using the Oryza sativa and Arabidopsis thaliana genomes. Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO) analysis showed that the pipeline was able to identify at least 95% of BUSCO's plantae dataset. Our evaluation shows that Seqping was able to generate better gene predictions compared to three HMM-based programs (MAKER2, GlimmerHMM and AUGUSTUS) using their respective available HMMs. Seqping had the highest accuracy in rice (0.5648 for CDS, 0.4468 for exon, and 0.6695 nucleotide structure) and A. thaliana (0.5808 for CDS, 0.5955 for exon, and 0.8839 nucleotide structure).
CONCLUSIONS: Seqping provides researchers a seamless pipeline to train species-specific HMMs and predict genes in newly sequenced or less-studied genomes. We conclude that the Seqping pipeline predictions are more accurate than gene predictions using the other three approaches with the default or available HMMs.
METHODS: In this phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions who had not received previous systemic therapy to receive intravenous amivantamab plus chemotherapy (amivantamab-chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome was progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were allowed to cross over to receive amivantamab monotherapy.
RESULTS: A total of 308 patients underwent randomization (153 to receive amivantamab-chemotherapy and 155 to receive chemotherapy alone). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 11.4 months and 6.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.53; P<0.001). At 18 months, progression-free survival was reported in 31% of the patients in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group and in 3% in the chemotherapy group; a complete or partial response at data cutoff was reported in 73% and 47%, respectively (rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68; P<0.001). In the interim overall survival analysis (33% maturity), the hazard ratio for death for amivantamab-chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.09; P = 0.11). The predominant adverse events associated with amivantamab-chemotherapy were reversible hematologic and EGFR-related toxic effects; 7% of patients discontinued amivantamab owing to adverse reactions.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of amivantamab-chemotherapy resulted in superior efficacy as compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; PAPILLON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04538664.).