MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330960312 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs-1069

Combination of low plasma stromal cell-derived factor-1 and phosphorylated-CXCR4: independent prognostic marker for breast cancer.

2009· article· en· W2330960312 on OpenAlexaff
Saima Hassan, Cristiano Ferrario, Uri Saragovi, Louise Quenneville, Louis Gaboury, Andrea Baccarelli, Ombretta Salvucci, Mark Basik

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemokine receptors and signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStromal cellCXCR4Breast cancerTissue microarrayMetastasisCancerMedicineCancer researchOncologyInternal medicineImmunohistochemistryPathologyPlasma cellStromal cell-derived factor 1Predictive markerCA15-3ReceptorChemokineBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract #1069 Background: Stromal cell-derived factor (SDF)-1, a chemoattractant cytokine, has been shown to be overexpressed in those organs to which breast cancer metastasizes, and serves to home in cancer cells which express its receptor, CXCR4. We have previously reported the role of low plasma SDF-1 levels as a host-derived marker predictive of distant metastasis. Low plasma SDF-1 levels are predictive of the formation of distant metastases independently of tumor production of SDF-1. In order to further characterize this cohort of patients with an innate susceptibility for poorer prognosis, we combined low plasma SDF-1 levels with tumor-derived markers. CXCR4 has been shown to be an independent prognostic marker, however it is plausible that activated CXCR4, or phosphorylated (p)-CXCR4 may be able to better discriminate metastatic risk. We hypothesized that the prognostic value of low plasma SDF-1 would be particularly informative in patients with tumors having high CXCR4 or p-CXCR4 expression. Materials and Methods: Using the same cohort of patients in whom we previously measured plasma SDF-1 levels, we built a tissue microarray containing paraffin-embedded tissue blocks of the primary tumor for 237 patients. There were 212 patients for whom plasma and tissue blocks were both available. Plasma SDF-1 levels were previously measured using an ELISA, and tumor protein expression was detected using immunohistochemistry. Survival analysis was calculated using cox regression analysis. Results: We found that tumor p-CXCR4 was a stronger prognostic marker than CXCR4. Patients with high expression of p-CXCR4 demonstrated a 4-fold higher rate of mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 3.95, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.55-10.03; P=0.004) in comparison to patients who highly expressed CXCR4 (HR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.09-9.37; P=0.03) in univariate analysis. In the subset of patients for whom plasma and tissue were both available, we confirmed the poor prognostic value of low plasma SDF-1 (HR for breast cancer-specific survival, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.33-9.74; P=0.01), and high p-CXCR4 (HR, 3.98; 95% CI, 1.57-10.13; P=0.004). There appeared to be an enhancing effect of the combination of low plasma SDF-1 and high p-CXCR4 upon prognostic significance (HR, 5.96; 95% CI, (2.57-13.81); P<0.001). This remained significant with multivariate analysis (HR, 3.78; 95% CI, (1.31-10.94); P=0.01). Discussion: We report here for the first time the prognostic value of phosphorylated-CXCR4 in breast cancer, and its superiority over CXCR4 expression. Furthermore, the combination of p-CXCR4 and low-plasma SDF-1 levels was determined to be an independent prognostic marker, stronger than either factor alone, suggesting that low plasma SDF-1 may especially favor the metastatic process in patients with tumors containing its activated CXCR4 receptor. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 1069.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 ResearchSame topicChemokine receptors and signalingFrench-language works237,207