MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2312533745 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs-3048

Insulin like growth factor in breast cancer subtypes.

2009· article· en· W2312533745 on OpenAlexaff
Rinat Yerushalmi, B. Gilks, TO Nielsen, Sook‐Kwan Leang, Maggie C.U. Cheang, Ryan Woods, Karen Gelmon, Hagen Kennecke

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences CentreBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineCancerTissue microarrayImmunohistochemistryInternal medicineInsulin-like growth factorStainingOncologyStage (stratigraphy)Growth factorPathologyReceptorBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract #3048 Background: Insulin Like Growth Factor -1 Receptor (IGF-1R) is an important new therapeutic target expressed in all cancer types. IGF-1R supports cell survival pathways implicated in resistance to cancer therapy. Knowledge of the pattern of IGF-R1 expression among breast cancer subtypes and its impact on prognosis may enhance development of therapeutics targeting this pathway. Methods: Patients with early breast cancer cases, stage I-III, referred to the BC Cancer Agency from 1986 to 1992 were included. Archival paraffin tissue blocks were used to construct a tissue microarray. Among 4,046 patients with early stage on the TMA, 1,238 patients (30.6 %) were excluded due to missing subtype biomarkers, IGFR staining or both. Breast cancer subtypes were defined as Luminal A (ER/PR+, HER2- and Ki67 <19%), Luminal B (ER/PR+,and HER2- and Ki67 >19%), Luminal HER2+ (HER2+ and ER/PR+), HER2 (HER2+ and ER-and PR-), and Basal {HER2-,ER-PR- and (CK 5/6+ and/or EGFR+)}. IGF-1R staining was done with Santa Cruz antibody and was scored negative if there was no or weak staining and positive if staining was moderate or strong. Chi-square and Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis were done to compare IGF-1R expression among subtypes and determine impact on Breast Cancer Specific (BCSS) and Overall Survival (OS). Results: A total of 2,808 evaluable cases were included with a median follow-up of 12.5 years. IGF-1R staining was scored positive in 86.4%, and negative in 13.6%. Cases with Luminal A (1,676), Luminal B (426), Luminal HER2+ (199), HER2 (206 ) and Basal (301 ) had an IGF-1R+ rate of 89.9%, 94.4 %, 83.4%, 59.2% and 76.1%, respectively (p<0.0001). 10 year BCSS was 68% (95% CI 66.0%-70.0%) in IGF-R1+ and 63% (95% CI 59.1%-66.9%) in IGF-R1 - group. Among subtypes, IGF-1R positivity was associated with improved BCSS only in Luminal A patients (p=0.015 ) and was not prognostic in other subtypes. Conclusion: Luminal breast cancer subtypes are associated with high rates of IGF1-R expression, while non-luminal groups have lower rates of expression. The prognostic impact of IGF-R1 expression supports the role of this pathway as a therapeutic target particularly among hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 3048.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 venueCancer Research→Same topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors→French-language works237,207→