MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative Biomarker Analysis in 523 Matched Male and Female Breast Cancers.

2009· article· en· W2037261412 on OpenAlexaff
V. Speirs, E T Verghese, Rebecca A. Brannan, Georgina Reall, AM Hanby, Steven Pollock, Hedieh Honarpisheh, Rani Kanthan, Selliah Kanthan, Maria Litwiniuk, Marcella Mottolese, S. Shousa, Mark Stephens, J. Dent, Abeer M. Shaaban

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMale Breast Health Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMale breast cancerBiomarkerInternal medicineMedicineOncologyCancerPathologyIncidence (geometry)Stage (stratigraphy)GastroenterologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Incidence rates of male breast cancer (MBC) are rising. MBC etiology is poorly understood with most of our current knowledge regarding its biology, natural history and treatment extrapolated from our knowledge of female breast cancer (FBC). Retrospective studies on MBC have suffered from small numbers of cases available from any one centre thus a significant problem in studying this disease is accruing sufficiently large numbers to allow comparative analysis of possible prognostic markers. Using a co-ordinated multi-centre approach, the aim of this study was to conduct the first large scale study to address the relevance of the expression of recognised biomarkers in FBC in the same disease in males. Five hundred and twenty three cases were obtained retrospectively and assimilated into TMAs, including 260 MBCs and 263 cases of stage-matched FBCs. MBC comprised 21 grade 1, 121 grade 2, 68 grade 3, 50 unknown, mean age 67 (range 39-90) with 167 ductal, 4 lobular, 10 papillary, 10, mucinous, 4 DCIS, 1 mixed and 64 unknown. FBC comprised 29 grade 1, 140 grade 2, 94 grade, mean age 58 (range 27-92) with 220 ductal, 23 lobular, 14 mixed and 6 unknown. Four µm TMA sections were analysed using the following biomarkers: hormone receptors (ERα, ERβ1, ERβ2, ERβ5, total PR, PRA, PRB, AR), apoptosis markers (p53, bcl2), basal (CK5/6, CK14) and luminal epithelial markers (CK18, CK19), E-cadherin and HER2. Biomarkers were scored according to published criteria; for ERβ isoforms both nuclear and cytoplasmic immunoreactivity was determined Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS. Luminal A (ERα+, and/or PR+, HER2-) was seen in 93% of MBC vs. 84% of FBC, Luminal B (ERα+, and/or PR+, HER2+) or HER2 subgroup (ERα-, PR-, HER2+) was not seen in MBC but found in 6% and 2% of FBC, respectively. Basal-like tumours (ERα-, PR-, HER2-, CK5/6+) were infrequent (MBC 2%, FBC 1%) and in MBC these tumours also expressed ERβ isoforms. No differences were observed in grade, stage or LN status between genders. Univariate analysis showed ERα, ERβ1, ERβ5, PRA, AR, p53 were significantly associated with FBC while cytoplasmic ERβ2, bcl2 and e-cadherin were associated with MBC (all P<0.001). Although membranous HER2 was not seen in MBC, many cases displayed nuclear staining. Biomarker profile with respect to clinical outcome is on-going. This work has shown the luminal A phenotype is common in MBC and that gender-specific biomarkers are expressed. As MBC is becoming more common, this information may be useful in identifying biomarkers which might affect outcome. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 2109.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicMale Breast Health StudiesFrench-language works237,207