Prospective Evaluation of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay for Breast Cancer Decision-Making in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) on decision-making in a population-based cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with axillary node-negative or nodal micrometastases, estrogen receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer being considered for chemotherapy were eligible. All cancer treatment centers in Ontario, Canada, participated. Oncologists made a preliminary recommendation for endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy on the basis of Adjuvant! Online (AOL) risk estimation. Patients were asked for their preference regarding chemotherapy. After RSs were available, patients returned for final decision-making. Patient satisfaction was measured by using the decisional conflict scale. RESULTS: Between January 2012 and July 2013, 1,000 patients were recruited. RSs were available for 979 patients. In 58% of patients, risk was categorized as low (RS, 0 to 18); in 33%, intermediate (RS, 19 to 30); and in 9%, high (RS, ≥ 31). Oncologists' recommendations pretest and post-test remained the same in 464 patients (48%), changed from unsure or chemotherapy to no chemotherapy in 365 (38%), and changed from unsure or no chemotherapy to chemotherapy in 143 (15%). After the test, oncologists recommended chemotherapy for 236 patients, 81% of whom received chemotherapy. Of 151 patients in whom risk was classified as intermediate by means of AOL, 41% were a low risk and 44% intermediate risk with RS. Of 298 patients at high risk with AOL, 16% had a high risk RS. None of 236 patients with grade I tumors had a high-risk RS. Mean total decisional conflict scale score significantly improved from pretest to post-test from 34 to 19 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The RS substantially influenced both oncologists' recommendations and patients' preferences for chemotherapy. The major effect was avoidance of chemotherapy when AOL indicated high or intermediate risk.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".