MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P2-12-28: Studies of a Malignancy-Associated Protein, Osteopontin, in NCIC CTG MA.14, a Randomized Trial of Tamoxifen Versus Combined Tamoxifen and Octreotide LAR in Adjuvant Treatment of Women with Early Breast Cancer.

2011· article· en· W2052926537 on OpenAlexaff
V H Bramwell, A.B. Tuck, JA Chapman, PH Anborgh, CO Postenka, LE Shepherd, Kathleen I. Pritchard, Lili Han, CR Wilson, Michaël Pollak, Ann F. Chambers

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Dental Protein Studies
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteopontinInternal medicineTamoxifenProportional hazards modelOncologyBreast cancerUnivariate analysisHazard ratioImmunohistochemistryCancerGastroenterologyMultivariate analysisConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background We have shown, in women with metastatic breast cancer (BC), that high baseline plasma osteopontin (OPN) levels and increases over time are associated with poor survival. In primary BC, increased immunohistochemical (IHC) expression of OPN in tumour is associated with poorer survival and is elevated in lymph node metastases relative to primary tumour. Our current study evaluates tumour and baseline/serial plasma OPN levels after resection of primary BC. Methods: In NCIC CTG MA.14, 667 postmenopausal women post surgery received 5 yrs Tamoxifen (T) +/− 2 yrs monthly Octreotide LAR. There were no differences in survival outcomes between arms. OPN was assayed by IHC in primary BC. OPN was measured in plasma at baseline (up to 4 mos post randomization) and serially in recurrent (18 mos time window) versus non-recurrent cases, by ELISA. Statistical Analysis: IHC and plasma OPN had Box-Cox variance stabilization transformations (power 0.5; logarithm). Descriptive characterization of both OPN measurements is provided for all patients, by baseline patient and tumour characteristics, and by recurrence status. Univariate stratified log-rank statistics and hazard ratios with 95% CI were generated for intention to treat (ITT), event free survival (EFS), relapse fee survival (RFS), overall survival, any bone RFS, and non-bone RFS. Stratified step-wise forward Cox regression was used, with factor added if p<0.05. Results: From 667 MA.14 patients, 647 patients were assessed for OPN: 462 (69%) by IHC; 387 (58%) at baseline in plasma (with 2,542 samples total from serial sampling). IHC % tumor positivity had mean 33.9% (95% CI 30.2%-37.9%), while baseline plasma OPN was mean 46.1 (44.6−47.6) ng/ml. In 80 women with recurrence, mean OPN during the recurrence window was 60.7 (52.8−69.8) ng/ml. Neither baseline IHC or plasma OPN levels were significantly associated with any of the endpoints in either univariate or multivariate analyses. Older age (p=0.02), greater nodal involvement (p=0.001), higher baseline body mass index (p<0.0001), and higher tumour grade (p<0.0001) were multivariately associated with shorter EFS. Baseline plasma OPN was not correlated with IHC OPN (Pearson 0.02, p=0.73). Discussion: Mean baseline OPN plasma level 46.1 ng/ml (median 45 ng/ml) in MA.14 was similar to our previous findings in healthy women (median 47 ng/ml). In contrast, we previously showed that 63% of 158 women with a new diagnosis of metastatic BC had elevated OPN levels with median value 177 ng/ml. Our results thus far suggest that tumor and plasma levels, while associated with prognosis in metastatic BC, may not be so in primary BC following surgery. However, in MA.14, the 80 women with recurrent BC had significantly higher mean OPN in the recurrence window, 60.7 ng/ml, than at baseline. We will present further analyses exploring this finding. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-12-28.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 topicBone and Dental Protein StudiesFrench-language works237,207