HER2 and TOP2A as predictive markers for anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimens as adjuvant treatment of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of individual patient data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prediction of response to anthracycline-based therapy for breast cancer is challenging. We aimed to assess the value of HER2 and TOP2A as predictive markers of response to anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy in patients with early breast cancer. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised adjuvant trials that compared anthracycline-based regimens with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) regimens. We assessed the status of HER2 and TOP2A genes with fluorescent in-situ hybridisation. Tumour samples were submitted to an external laboratory for validation. We calculated hazard ratios (HR) to compare event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival in patients receiving anthracycline-based treatment with those receiving CMF in two HER2 cohorts (HER2 amplified and non-amplified tumours) and in three TOP2A cohorts (normal, amplified, and deleted tumours). FINDINGS: We analysed data for 3452 patients for HER2 and 3102 patients for TOP2A. For EFS, HRs were 0·89 (95% CI 0·79-1·01) for HER2 non-amplified patients and 0·71 (0·58-0·86) for HER2-amplified patients (p(interaction)=0·0485); for overall survival, HRs were 0·91 (95% CI 0·79-1·05) for HER2 non-amplified patients and 0·73 (0·59-0·89) for HER2-amplified patients (p(interaction)=0·0718). In analysis of TOP2A status, HRs for EFS were 0·88 (0·78-1·00) for normal, 0·63 (0·46-0·87) for deleted, and 0·62 (0·43-0·90) for amplified (p(interaction)=0·0513); HRs for overall survival were 0·89 (0·78-1·03) for normal, 0·68 (0·49-0·95) for deleted, and 0·67 (0·46-0·98) for amplified (p(interaction)=0·1608). When patients with TOP2A-deleted and TOP2A-amplified tumours were grouped together (altered cohort) and compared with data from patients with normal TOP2A tumours, HRs for EFS were 0·64 (0·50-0·81) for altered and 0·88 (0·78-1·00) for normal (p(interaction)=0·0183); HRs for overall survival were 0·67 (0·52-0·86) for altered and 0·89 (0·78-1·03) for normal (p(interaction)=0·0455). INTERPRETATION: Although HER2 amplification and combined TOP2A amplification and deletion may have some value in the prediction of responsiveness to anthracycline-based chemotherapy, our findings do not support the use of anthracyclines only in patients with HER2-amplified or TOP2A-aberrated tumours. FUNDING: Associazione Italiana Ricerca Cancro, Academy of Finland, Belgian Federation Against Cancer, Cancer Research UK, Les Amis de l'Institut Bordet, Scottish Breast Cancer Trials Group, NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Danish Council for Strategic Research, Pharmacia-Upjohn (now Pfizer), and Abbott Laboratories.
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 | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".