Pathologic Complete Response Rates in Young Women With <i>BRCA1</i>-Positive Breast Cancers After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in BRCA1 mutation carriers according to chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a registry of 6,903 patients, we identified 102 women who carried a BRCA1 founder mutation and who had been treated for breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Pathologic complete response was evaluated using standard criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-four (24%) of the 102 BRCA1 mutation carriers experienced a pCR. The response rate varied widely with treatment: a pCR was observed in one (7%) of 14 women treated with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF); in two (8%) of 25 women treated with doxorubicin and docetaxel (AT); in 11 (22%) of 51 women treated with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) or fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC), and in 10 (83%) of 12 women treated with cisplatin. CONCLUSION: A low rate of pCR was observed in women with breast cancer and a BRCA1 mutation who were treated with AT or CMF. A high rate of pCR was seen after treatment with cisplatin. An intermediate rate of PCR was associated with AC or FAC. The relative benefits of AC and platinum therapy need to be confirmed through follow-up of this and other cohorts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".