MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121601348 · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.36.6385

Testing for Discordance at Metastatic Relapse: Does It Matter?

2012· letter· en· W2121601348 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Chia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the articles that accompany this editorial, two studies are reported that challenge the belief that a biopsy at the time of metastatic breast cancer relapse is not routinely required, because it provides no further information in regard to the optimal treatment of an individual patient’s tumor. Amir et al 1 report on a prospective trial assessing the clinical impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer, and Niikura et al 2 describe rates of discordance and survival in a large single-institution cohort of patients with human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) positive primary breast cancer who had a metastatic tumor biopsy result available. Both of these studies are important for solidifying the results of numerous retrospective studies that have consistently demonstrated a discordant rate for either the estrogen receptor (ER) or HER2 receptor between the primary tumor and metastatic lesion. Although it is rational to attempt a biopsy for confirmation of metastatic disease for prognostic purposes, perhaps more contentious are the potential reasons behind, and the resultant clinical consequences of, an apparent discordant result. In the pragmatic and well-designed prospective cohort study by Amir et al, 1 patients presenting with evidence suggestive of metastatic disease or who were experiencing progression while receiving a palliative systemic treatment were enrolled. Strengths of the study were that the primary end point of the study was the proportion of patients in whom the biopsy result led to a change in systemic management, with secondary end points including patient-reported outcomes related to patient satisfaction. Neither of these important end points can be properly measured by means of retrospective study. The main conclusion of the study was the finding of discordance in either ER or HER2 in 16% and 10% of patients, respectively. In 14% of all patients enrolled, the biopsy result led to a reported change in management, with 88% of all participants stating they would recommend the biopsy procedure to other patients. In the retrospective study from the MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDACC), 182 patients with HER2-positive primary breast cancers were identified, of whom 24% (n 43) were found to have an HER2-negative metastatic lesion on review. 2 Furthermore, the investigators demonstrated that the patients with a discordant HER2 result (HER2-positive primary disease but HER2-negative metastases) had worse survival than the patients with a concordant HER2 result (hazard ratio, 0.43; P .003). Strengths of this study were the relatively large cohort of HER2-positive primary breast cancers identified, the attempted central review of HER2 results (for those patients who were originally assessed at other institutions), and correlation of treatments and outcome between discordant and concordant subgroups. A discordant rate of approximately 25% in either ER or HER2 is well within the range seen in several recent larger retrospectives studies as well as one prospective study (BRITS [Breast Recurrence in Tissues Study]). 3-9 This range of discordance, between 20% and 30%, has been repeatedly demonstrated in these studies despite differences in methodology of assessment for the biomarkers between the primary and relapsed lesions, inclusion of both local and regional relapses with the distant tumors, and heterogeneity in patient populations. Despite

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0140.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.380
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207