Abstract PD10-05: Do the Results of Metastatic Breast Tumour Biopsies Affect Patient Survival Outcomes? Results from a Large Prospective Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Differences in receptor status between primary and metastatic breast cancer are well recognized. We have previous demonstrated substantial receptor discordance rates resulting in a change in management in 14% of patients. However, while retrospective studies suggest that discordance can be associated with a worse patient prognosis, there are currently no prospective data assessing the impact of such discordance on survival outcomes. Methods: A single-center prospective biopsy study was performed. Patients with either recurrent or progressive disease underwent biopsy of their metastases. Subsequent treatment choices were modified according to the results and patients were followed up for progression or death. To account for the differing times at which patients entered the study, progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated as the duration between biopsy and either progression or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the duration from diagnosis of metastatic disease to death. A Cox propotional hazards model accounting for duration of metastatic disease and visceral versus non-visceral metastatic disease was utilized. Results: 121 biopsies were completed and 38% of cases showed discordance between the primary and the recurrence. Survival data were available from 96 patients. After a median follow-up of 11 months, 76 patients (79%) had progressed and 38 (40%) had died. There was no difference in median PFS between concordant and discordance cases (5.9 vs. 6.5 months, HR 0.89, p=0.61). There was a non-significant trend towards worse OS in discordant cases (50.6 vs. 57.8 months, HR 0.77, p=0.47). When compared with the primary tumour a gain of HER2 was associated with a poor survival, while loss of HER2 was associated with improved outcome. Metastatic biopsies showed a trend towards better prediction of response to endocrine therapy with tumors losing progesterone receptor expression between primary and metastatic disease having worse DFS on endocrine therapy. Conclusion: We have previously shown that performing metastatic biopsies is associated with a substantial rate of receptor discordance between primary and metastatic disease. The current analysis demonstrates that this discordance is associated with a trend towards worse OS, but not PFS. Knowledge of the receptor status of metastatic disease allows better prognostication between HER2-postive and HER2-negative disease and also allows for improved prediction of response to endocrine therapy. Metastatic biopsies should therefore be considered in patients with recurrent breast cancer. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD10-05.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".