MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029933153 · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.targ-11-c1

Abstract C1: BRCA1 protein levels and PI3KA mutations as predictive biomarkers for response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: An exploratory analysis.

2011· article· en· W2029933153 on OpenAlexaff
John Hilton, Johanne I. Weberpals, Ian Lorimer, Shahrier Amin, Shahidul Islam, Manijeh Daneshmand, Jennifer Hanson, Ranjeeta Mallick, Femina Kanji, Shailendra Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineOncologyInternal medicineChemotherapyLogistic regressionExact testCancerNeoadjuvant therapyImmunohistochemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with a goal of achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) and a better outcome. Given the role of breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) overexpression and PI 3-kinase (PI3K) activation in the resistance to DNA damaging agents, we hypothesize that BRCA1 protein expression and activating PI3K mutations are potential tumor biomarkers for chemotherapy response in LABC. Methods: For this exploratory study, informed consent was requested from 136 eligible patients identified between 2006 and 2008. Participants had demographic and response data collected and the pathologic characteristics of the tumor specimens before and after chemotherapy were evaluated. BRCA1 protein expression levels were assessed by immunohistochemistry of archival tissue. Specimens were evaluated by two separate pathologists for both staining intensity and distribution. BRCA1 protein levels were then tested for correlation with pCR and a partial response or better using a Chi Square Test and logistic regression analysis. PI3KA mutation status was assessed by isolating DNA from pathology sample sections followed by nested PCR amplification and DNA sequencing. PI3KA mutation status was then tested for correlation with pCR and a partial response or better using a Fisher Exact Test and a logistic regression analysis. Results: Of the 136 eligible participants, 65 agreed to participate, with analyzable samples available in 59. Of these 59 patients, the median age was 51.6 years, 20.3% had inflammatory disease, 72.8% were ER positive, 61.0% were PR positive, 28.8% were HER2 positive and the median tumor grade was 2/3. All participants received 4 cycles of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide and 4 cycles of docetaxel followed by 1 year of trastuzumab initiated with docetaxel if HER2 positive, except for one participant who received 6 cycles of carboplatin/taxotere due to a pre-existing cardiac dysfunction. 78.3% of participants had ≥30% response to therapy, with 23.7% achieving a pCR. BRCA1 protein expression was scored between 0–9. A minimal p-value approach established that samples scored ≤4 have relatively low levels of protein expression, while samples scored >4 have high levels. Low levels of BRCA1 protein had an Odds ratio (OR) = 1.74 of achieving a pCR compared to high levels, although this was not statistically significant (p-value=0.437). PI3KA mutations were not statistically associated with a likelihood of pCR (OR=0.977; p=0.971). Neither BRCA1 protein levels (OR=1.18; p=0.818) nor PI3KA mutations (OR=1.03; p=0.971) appeared to be associated with the likelihood of achieving a partial response or better to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A mutation in PI3KA showed a trend towards an increased likelihood of not presenting with inflammatory disease (OR=5.34), although this result did not reach statistical significance (p=0.101). Conclusions: In this exploratory study in LABC, neither BRCA1 protein expression levels nor the presence of PI3KA mutations appear to be associated with chemotherapy response. However, the relatively small sample size limits the overall interpretation. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2011 Nov 12-16; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2011;10(11 Suppl):Abstract nr C1.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207