Abstract P4-11-07: Comparison of multiparameter tests in the UK OPTIMA-Prelim trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction All published adjuvant chemotherapy trials in breast cancer have made the assumption that the proportional benefits of chemotherapy apply uniformly across molecular subgroups. However, it can be argued that chemotherapy effectiveness for luminal A breast cancer is low in comparison to other subtypes irrespective of tumour stage. A logical extension of this argument is that novel multiparametric tests that use biological features of breast cancers to assess risk may also inform chemotherapy benefit in luminal cancers. The OPTIMA trial is a multi-centre, partially blinded, randomised clinical trial with a non-inferiority endpoint, and an adaptive design, to compare standard treatment (chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy) with multi-parameter test-guided treatment allocation to either chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. OPTIMA-prelim aimed to compare the predicted risk stratification, sub-type classification and cost effectiveness of different multiparameter tests performed on the same patient population. Methods Over 20 months of recruitment 285 patients were randomised to OPTIMA-prelim. Tissue was collected centrally, ER and HER2 status confirmed and samples provided for testing with Oncotype DX™, Prosigna™ (PAM50), Mammaprint™, Mammatyper™, IHC4-AQUA and IHC4 using conventional biomarkers. Sub-type classification was provided by Blueprint™, Mammatyper™ and Prosigna™. Each test was performed at central diagnostic laboratories (OncotypeDx, Mammaprint/Blueprint, Mammatyper) or in a central laboratory (Prosigna™/IHC4) strictly according to GLP practices. Results Samples from 181 patients randomised by January 2014 were tested and data analysed for this study. Patients were categorised as low/intermediate or high risk using predetermined cut-offs for each test. Oncotype DX predicted a proportion of low-risk tumours (79%; 95% CI 73-85%) similar to that predicted as either low or intermediate risk using Prosigna ROR_P (71%; 95% CI 64-78%) and IHC4 (69%; 95% CI 62-76%), whilst MammaPrint identified the fewest low-risk tumours (59%; 95% CI 52-66%). Strikingly, a comparison between tests showed modest agreement between tests when dichotomising results between high vs low/intermediate risk. Disagreement between different tests, in assigning individual tumours to risk categories, is not uncommon; for the four tests [Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna ROR_P (low/int) and IHC4 (low/int)], only 71 (39%) tumours were classified as low/intermediate risk for all four tests and only 17 (9%) tumours were high risk for all four tests, 93 (52%) tumours were assigned to different risk categories by different tests. Similarly all three subtypes tests (Blueprint/Prosigna/Mammatyper) each assigned 59% of tumors to luminal A subtype but only 70% of these cases were classified as luminal A by all three assays. Conclusion Existing evidence on the comparative prognostic information provided by different tests suggests current multiparameter tests provide broadly equivalent risk information for the population of women with luminal breast cancers. However, for the individual patient, tests may provide differing risk categorisation or indeed subtype information. Acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (project 10/34/01). The opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or Department of Health. Citation Format: John MS Bartlett, Robert C Stein, Jane Bayani, Andrea Marshall, Janet A Dunn, Amy F Campbell, Carrie Cunningham, Monika Sobol, Peter Hall, Leila Rooshenas, Adrienne Morgan, Christopher Poole, Sarah E Pinder, David A Cameron, Nigel Stallard, Jenny Donovan, Christopher McCabe, Luke Hughes-Davies, Andreas Makris, on Behalf of the OPTIMA Trial Management Group. Comparison of multiparameter tests in the UK OPTIMA-Prelim trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-07.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».