PD05-05: Meta Analysis of Discordant HER2 Status in Matched Primary and Metastatic Breast Cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The status of HER2 amplification in breast cancer is an important prognostic and predictive indicator. Only those tumors exhibiting HER2 overamplification are candidates for HER2 targeted therapy. It remains controversial how accurately HER2 status of primary tumors reflects HER2 status in distant metastases. Discordance between primary and metastatic tumors can impact significantly on patient management and suitability for HER2 targeted therapies in the setting of recurrent distant disease. Methods: A literature search of the PubMed database was performed to identify all primary studies comparing HER2 status in matched primary and distant metastatic tumors between January 2005 and February 2011. Review and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Eligible studies evaluated HER2 status by current ASCO guidelines. Studies comparing paired primary and axillary lymph nodes or synchronous primaries and metastases were excluded. Weighted pooled estimates were calculated. Results: The original search strategy retrieved 1703 studies for which there were 62 eligible studies for full evaluation. Metastatic sites included bone, brain, lung and liver. Traztuzumab was received in three studies. Weighted summary estimate for negative to positive discordance was 23% (95% CI, 16.0-28%). Positive to negative discordance had a weighted summary estimate of 4% (95% CI, 0.0-6%). Discussion: Meta analysis of studies adhering to ASCO guidelines for HER2 status determination revealed a significant rate of change to HER2 positive metastatic disease in HER2 unamplified primary breast cancers. This data suggests that nearly one quarter of patients may be denied the benefit of HER2 targeted therapy if HER2 primary status alone is used a the sole measure in determining therapeutic options upon distant recurrence. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD05-05.
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 | 0.026 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".