Abstract P4-11-03: Androgen receptor expression is an independent marker of lower residual risk in the TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/019)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: TACT2 (CRUK/05/019), a multicentre randomized phase III trial in patients with node +ve or high risk node -ve invasive EBC with E-CMF as control tested two hypotheses in a 2x2 factorial design, with previously presented results showing: i) no evidence of a benefit from accelerated 2-weekly epirubicin (aE) compared to standard 3-weekly epirubicin (E) (Cameron 2012); and ii) capecitabine (X) gives equivalent efficacy but preferential side-effect profile to CMF (Canney 2014). Studies suggest that Androgen receptor (AR) expression may be associated with improved outcome in early breast cancer. We performed an analysis of AR expression in TACT2 patients to test the hypothesis that AR would represent an independent predictor of residual risk following adjuvant therapy. Methods: Tumour samples were collected prospectively from 3803/4391 TACT2 patients, Tissue micro-arrays were constructed as per published guidelines and central AR, ER, PgR, HER2, Ki67, CK5/6, EGFr and BCL2 staining performed and quantified by imaged analysis for ER, PgR, HER2, Ki67 and BCL2. EGFr and CK5/6 were dichotomised by light microscopy evaluation of cores. After planned biomarker analyses had been performed, a subset of TACT2 cases for whom remaining tissue was available were analysed for AR expression. Data for 1878 cases was available for this analysis (49% of those consenting to tissue collection). AR expression was dichotomised as AR-ve (<10%) vs AR+ve (>10%). Log-rank tests were used to explore the prognostic value of AR on time to recurrence (TTR). Cox-regression models were used to test the independent prognostic value of AR in the presence of tumour size, grade, nodal status, and biological subtypes. Marker by treatment interaction terms were included in models to test the predictive value of AR for both randomised treatment comparisons. Results: 1398/1878 (74%) patients were classed as AR+ve and 480/1878 (26%) as AR-ve. The proportion of AR+ve patients differed significantly between biological subtypes (Luminal A 269/293 (92%); Luminal B 784/928 (84%); HER+ve 86/111 (77%); Basal-like 37/216 (17%); 5-marker-ve 37/93 (40%); χ2 p<0.001) 117/480 (24%) AR-ve patients had a TTR event compared with 183/1398 (13%) AR+ve patients (HR for AR-ve compared to AR+ve =2.05 95%CI 1.63-2.59; p<0.001). AR expression remained independently prognostic following adjustment for nodal status, grade, tumour size and biological subtype (HR1.68, 95%CI 1.26-2.25; p<0.001). Exploratory analysis suggested the prognostic impact of AR might be predominantly in luminal B and 5-marker-ve breast cancers; however the interaction between subtype and AR was not statistically significant. No differential treatment effect between AR subtypes was observed for either randomised treatment comparison (E/aE or CMF/X). Conclusion: AR is an independent prognostic marker for residual risk following chemotherapy in this large study which included patients with both luminal and non-luminal cancers. AR expression patterns differ between molecular subtypes of early breast cancer, with evidence suggesting the impact of AR on residual risk may also differ between subtypes. AR is currently being explored as another potential target for therapy so these data could have future clinical relevance. Citation Format: Jane Bayani, James Morden, Sunil Skaria, Peter Bliss, Robert Grieve, Adrian Harnett, Chris Bradley, Diana Ritchie, Peter Barrett-Lee, Peter Canney, David Cameron, Judith Bliss, John Bartlett. Androgen receptor expression is an independent marker of lower residual risk in the TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/019) [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 P4-11-03.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».