Abstract P1-13-14: Discordance of ER and PR status between primary and recurrent breast cancer in association with endocrine therapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Discordance in tumor receptor status between primary and recurrent tumors has been previously reported. Discordant ER/PR status has been used to differentiate recurrences from new primaries. We evaluated discordance rates of ER and PR expression between the primary and locoregional/contralateral recurrences and examined the relationship with adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET). Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients (pts) treated with lumpectomy and adjuvant locoregional radiation (RT) from 1999-2005 at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Tumor recurrence was classified as locoregional recurrence (LRR) for ipsilateral breast or lymph node recurrence, contralateral disease (CD) or distant recurrence. ER and PR were assessed by immunohistochemistry; positive if >10% tumor cells staining, borderline if 10% staining, and negative if <10% staining. Univariate analyses were applied to determine the association of receptor discordance with age, menopausal status, tumor grade, endocrine therapy or adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: All 441 pts had a lumpectomy with negative margins and RT, and had a median follow-up of 8.3 years. The median age at primary surgery was 57, and 67% of pts were postmenopausal. ET (tamoxifen and/or aromatase inhibitors) was initiated in 294 (84%) eligible patients. There were 24 (5.4%) pts with LRR, 20 (4.5%) pts with CD, and 28 (6.3%) with distant metastases. Nine pts with LRR also had distant disease, and 3 pts with CD also had distant disease. Among pts with LRR, 17 had ER/PR status available for comparison. Discordance rates for ER and PR were (1/17) 5.9% and (3/17) 17.6%, respectively, and the most common change was ER becoming positive, and PR becoming negative (75%). For pts with CD, 18 had ER/PR status available for comparison. Discordance rates for ER and PR were (7/18) 38.9% and (9/18) 50%, respectively. The most common change was ER becoming positive (86%), and PR becoming positive (75%). Distant disease receptor status was only available for two patients, therefore not included. The patient with LRR and discordant ER did not receive ET, while pts with LRR and discordant PR all received ET. Among patients with CD, 15% of patients with discordant ER status received ET, and 33% with discordant PR received ET. There was no statistically significant association between discordance rates in either LRR or CD groups and use of ET. Similarly, discordance rates were not associated with the other patient or tumor variables studied, or the development of distant metastases or death. Conclusions: Discordance of ER and PR expression was low in LRR and higher in CD, where the majority of changes were from negative to positive receptor status. Receptor discordance was not associated with endocrine therapy. This study suggests that the biology of LRR and CD may be different, and re-evaluation of receptor status could lead to additional treatment options becoming available from an endocrine standpoint. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P1-13-14.
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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».