MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P1-06-07: TIMP-1 in Combination with HER2 and TOP2A for Prediction of Benefit from Adjuvant Anthracyclines in High Risk Breast Cancer Patients.

2011· article· en· W2000193382 on OpenAlexaff
PB Hertel, D. Tu, Bent Ejlertsen, M-B Jensen, Eva Balslev, FP O'Malley, Kathleen I. Pritchard, LE Shepherd, Annette Bartels, Nils Brünner, TO Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerAnthracyclineOncologyInternal medicineAdjuvantImmunohistochemistryBiomarkerCancerClinical trialBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: HER2 amplification, TOP2A aberrations and absence of TIMP-1 (Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase-1) expression in breast carcinomas have been associated with incremental benefit from anthracycline-containing adjuvant chemotherapy in several reports. In the DBCG 89D trial, we demonstrated that the predictive value of these markers improved when they were combined in a profile and the present study was undertaken to validate these findings in NCIC CTG MA.5, a similar but independent clinical trial. Design: TIMP-1 was examined by immunohistochemistry in archival tumor tissue from 403 of 716 premenopausal high-risk patients with known HER2 and TOP2A status who were randomized to CEF or CMF in the MA.5 trial. Patients were classified according to 2 predefined marker profiles — the HT profile (HER2, TIMP-1) and the 2T profile (TOP2A, TIMP-1) and the statistical analyses were performed as closely as possible to the analytical approach used previously in the MA.5 trial and when analysing the biomarker profiles in the DBCG 89D trial. Results: 98 (24%) patients had no TIMP-1 staining of tumor cells, 27% were HER2 amplified, and 18% were TOP2A aberrant. 44% of patients were classified as HT responsive (HER2-positive and/or TIMP-1 negative) and 37% as 2T responsive (TOP2A aberrant and/or TIMP-1 negative). There was no heterogeneity in treatment effect of CEF versus CMF according to TIMP-1. In HT responsive patients, CEF was superior to CMF with improved RFS (adjusted HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.98) and a borderline-significant improvement in OS (adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.04). A significant HT profile versus treatment interaction was detected for OS (P=0.03). In 2T responsive patients, CEF was superior to CMF with borderline significant improvement in RFS (adjusted HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.03), and with improvement in OS (adjusted HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93). A significant 2T profile versus treatment interaction was detected for OS (P=0.01). Conclusion: In the MA.5 trial, we have validated the HT and 2T profiles as predictors of incremental benefit from anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. The proportion of patients categorized as anthracycline responsive increases from 18–27% using individual markers to 37–44% when combining TIMP-1 with either HER2 or TOP2A. Patients with responsive profiles had a 34–42% relative reduction in mortality when treated with CEF. In contrast, patients with non-responsive profiles (56-63% of patients) had no incremental benefit from CEF compared with CMF. All 3 biomarkers are easily applied in the pathology lab and as such could be used in daily clinical practice to select patients for anthracycline or non-anthracycline containing adjuvant chemotherapy. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-06-07.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207