MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prediction of long-term survival using expression of FOXA1, a determinant of estrogen response domains in breast cancer

2006· article· en· W2546392269 on OpenAlexaff
Sunil Badve, Dmitry Turbin, Akira Morimiya, Torsten O. Nielsen, CM Perou, Sandi Dunn, David Huntsman, Harikrishna Nakshatri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFOXO transcription factor regulation
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFOXA1GATA3Breast cancerEstrogen receptorMedicineImmunohistochemistryTranscription factorCancer researchEstrogenEstrogen receptor alphaInternal medicineCancerOncologyBiologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

539 Background: Recent studies have demonstrated cofactor dependency of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) in defining specific pattern of estrogen (E2) response in breast cancer. FOXA1, also called HNF3α, a forkhead family transcription factor, has emerged as a major cofactor that is essential for optimum transcription of ∼50% of ERα:E2 responsive genes. FOXA1 is expressed in breast cancer cells and in cDNA microarray cluster analysis segregates with genes that characterize the luminal A subtype such as ERα, GATA3, and XBP-1. Detailed expression analysis of FOXA1 in human breast tumors has not been previously performed and it is not known whether it is an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer. Methods: A tissue microarray comprising tumors from 438 patients with 20 years follow-up was analyzed for FOXA1 expression using goat-anti-human FOXA1 antibody by immunohistochemistry. Percentage (P) and intensity (I) of expression was analyzed to generate numerical score (S= P × I). FOXA1 expression was correlated with tumor grade, nodal status, disease free survival, and expression of ER, PR, GATA3, HER2, p27kip1, phospho-AKT, and luminal A subtype (defined as ER &/or PR+, bcl-2+ and Her-2-neg). Results: FOXA1 expression (score greater than 100) was seen in 187 of 438 breast cancers and correlated with greater likelihood of survival at 20 year (p=0.0114). A significant positive correlation was observed between FOXA1 expression and expression of ERα (p= 0.000001), GATA3 (p= 0.000001), PR (p= 0.00001), phospho-AKT (p= 0.00001). Similarly, a significant correlation was noted with luminal A subtype. An inverse correlation was noted with tumor grade and mdm-2 expression (p=0.00001). HER2 or p27kip1 expression and nodal status showed no correlation with FOXA1. Conclusions: FOXA1 is good prognostic marker predicting disease free survival in patients with breast cancer. Since its expression correlates well with breast cancer of luminal A subtype, it can also be used to identify these good prognosis tumors from the rest of the ER positive breast cancers in archival paraffin embedded breast tissues. 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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicFOXO transcription factor regulationFrench-language works237,207