Patterns of Chromosomal Alterations in Breast Ductal Carcinoma <b> <i>In situ</i> </b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is thought to be a nonobligate precursor of invasive cancer. Genomic changes specific to pure DCIS versus invasive cancer, as well as alterations unique to individual DCIS subtypes, have not been fully defined. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Chromosomal copy number alterations were examined by comparative genomic hybridization in 34 cases of pure DCIS and compared with 12 cases of paired synchronous DCIS and invasive ductal cancer, as well as to 146 additional cases of invasive breast cancer of ductal or lobular histology. Genomic differences between high-grade and low/intermediate-grade DCIS, as well as between pure DCIS and invasive cancer, were identified. RESULTS: Pure DCIS showed almost the same degree of chromosomal instability as invasive ductal cancers. A higher proportion of low/intermediate-grade versus high-grade DCIS had loss of 16q (65 versus 12%, respectively; P = 0.002). When compared with lower grade DCIS, high-grade DCIS exhibited more frequent gain of 17q (65 versus 41%; P = 0.15) and higher frequency loss of 8p (77 versus 41%; P = 0.04). Chromosomal alterations in those cases with synchronous DCIS and invasive ductal cancer showed a high degree of shared changes within the two components. CONCLUSIONS: DCIS is genetically advanced, showing a similar degree of chromosomal alterations as invasive ductal cancer. The pattern of alterations differed between high- and low/intermediate-grade DCIS, supporting a model in which different histological grades of DCIS are associated with distinct genomic changes. These regions of chromosomal alterations may be potential targets for treatment and/or markers of prognosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".