MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

HER-2 gene amplification in circulating tumor cells (CTCs): Concordance with amplification status in primary breast cancers and metastatic lesions

2009· article· en· W2248932904 on OpenAlexaff
Rinat Yerushalmi, Moshe Mishaeli, David G. Huntsman, Karen A. Gelmon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCirculating tumor cellMedicineConcordanceMetastatic breast cancerBreast cancerDAPICancerPrimary tumorPathologyOncologyFish <Actinopterygii>ImmunohistochemistryGene duplicationLiquid biopsyInternal medicineMetastasisStainingGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e12006 Background: Recent studies have suggested a significant incidence (10%-30%) of discordance in HER-2 expression between metastatic lesions and the primary breast cancer (BC) which can result in inappropriate treatment recommendations. Biopsies of recurrent BC can aid in determining the expression but are often painful, costly, or cause delays in therapy. We initiated a study with the objective to determine and compare the molecular characteristics of the primary tumor, CTCs and metastases to assess whether the assessment of HER-2 gene amplification status in CTCs by FISH analysis could be used to determine treatment. Methods: After consent, patients with metastatic BC were enrolled, peripheral blood was collected (5 cc-10 cc), metastases were biopsied and HER-2 expression was determined. Blood samples were used for the CTC assay. We performed the CTC enrichment assay using a combination of anti CK and anti-EpCAM. The criteria for CTCs were: positive for cytokeratins 8, 18, 19, positive for DAPI and negative for CD45. Slides were scanned for CTCs using the Ariol system. When a CTC was identified the slide was reused for HER-2 FISH staining using the PathVysion HER-2 DNA Probe Kit. Initial attempts of FISH on CTCs took 48 hours to complete; to hasten the process, the second scan for FISH was done only on selected areas and the images for CTCs and FISH analysis were fused to obtain FISH images on a specific CTCs resulting in a 1 hour process. Results: To date 58 samples were collected, 40 of which had CTCs. At present, biopsies are being assessed and compared to the primary lesion in the initial 20 cases. Conclusions: FISH analysis of CTCs is a feasible technique and may be used to assess the specific molecular characteristics of breast cancer. Whether their HER-2 status reflects the metastatic or primary tumor is still unclear but is being determined and may have useful clinical application. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research→French-language works237,207→