Abstract P5-03-05: Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Prognosis Dependent on Presenting Stage Rather Than Receptor Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: To investigate the differences in survival and prognostic factors such as age at diagnosis, stage, size of tumor, mode of identification, treatment and family history between patients that have triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and those who are not (at least one positive marker). Methods: a retrospective chart review was conducted on 1018 eligible breast cancer patients who were diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 in Essex, Kent, and Lambton counties in Ontario. Results: Our demographic findings supported those of previous publications whereby age at diagnosis was younger for TNBC patients (53.2 vs 60.9 respectively; p < 0.001). The frequency of stage III cancer was higher among TNBC patients than that of other cancer patients (16.2% and 6.3%, respectively; p > 0.001). Frequency of self detection was higher among TNBC patients compared to patients with other cancers (76.8% and 56.4%, respectively; p <.001). Perhaps most importantly, while TNBC had had HR of 2.29 (95%CI = 1.33 - 2.93), the adjusted survival analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in the overall survival between the two groups (HR = 1.22; 95%CI = .63 - 2.39). The significant predictors of survival in the adjusted analysis were; age, stage of cancer, and size of cancer. Conclusions: We believe that this is the first indication that patients with TNBC do as well as their non-TNBC cohorts when matched for stage at presentation. Future studies need to focus on identification of patients who are at increased risk of TNBC so appropriate screening tests can be obtained. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-03-05.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".