Abstract P1-08-24: High tumor RNA disruption is associated with increased survival in patients with locally advanced breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: We recently reported that epirubicin/docetaxel treatment of locally advanced breast cancer patients in the MA.22 clinical trial reduced tumor RNA integrity and that low mid-treatment tumor RNA integrity was associated with a pathologic complete response (pCR) post-treatment [Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 119:347-356]. A novel method for detection of chemotherapy-dependent loss of RNA integrity, the RNA disruption assay (RDA), has since been developed, which stratifies RNA disruption into 3 zones. Zone 1 represents drug effect inadequate to obtain a pCR [RNA disruption index (RDI) ≤ 10, NPV>0.99]. Zone 2, an intermediate zone (RDI >10 and ≤35) had 1 pCR in our study, while Zone 3 (RDI >35) had the most pCRs (n = 7). Methods: We have now evaluated the relationship between tumor RNA disruption and both treatment response and patient survival in all evaluable MA.22 patients (n = 85). RNA was isolated from 2-3 tumor biopsies/patient prior to and after 3 (Schedule A) or 4 (Schedule B) cycles of chemotherapy at 3- or 2-weekly intervals, respectively. RNA quality was assessed on an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer and RNA disruption quantified using RDA. Results: Chemotherapy exposure reduced maximum tumor RNA content from 197 ± 24 ng/μl (mean ± standard error) pre-treatment to 94.0 ± 12.8 ng/μl mid-treatment, with maximum tumor RDI values increasing from 26.0 ± 5.8 to 88.1 ± 19.1 (p<0.01 for both observations by Sign test). At the time of assessment, there were similar numbers of deceased patients across tumor RDA zones 1, 2, and 3 mid-treatment (7, 8, and 9 patients, respectively). In contrast, there were 2.9-fold more living patients with tumors in RDA zone 3 (29) than in zone 1 (10). Disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly greater (by 23.6 months) for zone 3 patients (56.9 ± 5.6 months) compared to zone 1 patients (33.3 ± 6.8 months) (p = 0.0096 by Mann Whitney Wilcoxon Test for this and all subsequent statistical tests). Living patients with tumor RDA values in zone 3 exhibited 24.5 months greater DFS than living patients with tumors in zone 1 (68.2 ± 5.5 months versus 43.7 ± 9.5 months, respectively; p = 0.015). Given their high frequency within the patient population, we were also able to conclude that greater DFS (an additional 28.6 months) could be seen for patients with estrogen receptor positive (ER+) tumors in zone 3 (59.2 ± 7.2 months) compared to patients with similar tumors in zone 1 (30.6 ± 6.3 months; p = 0.0088). Living patients with ER+ tumors in zone 3 had even greater DFS (+42.5 months) compared to living patients with ER+ tumors in zone 1 (71.8 ± 5.8 months versus 29.3 ± 8.7 months, respectively; p = 0.0012). There were also 2.5-fold more living patients with ER+ tumor RDA values in zone 3 (15) than in zone 1 (6). None of the above significant differences were observed when pre-treatment tumor RDI values or pre-treatment patient characteristics were assessed. Irrespective of breast tumor receptor subtype, chemotherapy-dependent RNA disruption mid-treatment was typically higher in patients that achieved a pCR post-treatment than for patients that did not. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that tumor RNA disruption measurements during treatment will be highly useful to predict response and survival for locally advanced breast cancer patients. Our data demonstrate that non-responding patients (zone 1 by RDA) have considerably reduced DFS with very little chance of achieving a pCR. Such patients can be spared the toxicities associated with continuing an ineffective regimen and can be considered quickly for alternate treatments, including surgery, radiation therapy, or other anti-cancer drugs. The impact of treatment schedule and dose on RDA's ability to predict patient response and survival is currently being assessed. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P1-08-24.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".