MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes of patients with triple-negative breast cancer compared to non-triple negative breast cancer: A single-center study.

2014· article· en· W2596411967 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline Hamm, Maher M. El‐Masri, Rasna Gupta, Swati Kulkarni, Akmal Ghafoor, Pamathy Vivek, John Mathews, Yasmin Alam, Tarek Elfiki, Sindu Kanjeekal, K Schneider, Ming Pan, Khalid Hirmiz, Colvin Springer, Junaid Yousuf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsWindsor Clinical ResearchUniversity of WindsorWindsor Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriple-negative breast cancerMedicineBreast cancerStage (stratigraphy)OncologyInternal medicineSingle CenterCancerEstrogen receptorProgesterone receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1123 Background: Triple negative breast cancer is defined as estrogen receptor negative, progesterone receptor negative, Her-2-neu negative breast cancer. The lack of targeted therapies for this patient group has been considered to be a negative prognostic factor. Methods: Twelve hundred thirty four non-triple negative (n-TNBC) breast cancer patients and 167 triple negative (TNBC) patients were reviewed retrospectively. All patients were treated in a single centre in Ontario, and all received standard of care in Ontario, Canada. Hormone receptor positive patients received anti-estrogen therapy, and Her-2 positive patients received chemotherapy and trastuzumab. Results: Although overall progression free survival was statistically inferior for the TNBC group ( p < 0.001), important information is found when analyzed by stage at presentation. Median progression free survival (PFS) was not reached for any stage I, nor stage II patient group. There was no difference in overall survival for stage one between the n-TNBC and the TNBC groups, but was inferior for the TNBC group for Stage II and III. Few relapses were seen in the stage 1 TNBC group, and none were identified after 40 months (median follow-up 40 months). All analyses are as of yet unadjusted. Conclusions: Although the overall outcome of TNBC patients is inferior to their n-TNBC counterparts, their presenting stage is still vitally important in predicting outcome. Stage 1 TNBC carries a good prognosis, possibly better than the NTN counterpart. Ongoing research to identify these TNBC patients at an earlier stage is vital to improving outcomes in this patient population. Variable N (%) OS in years PFS in years Mean Median Log Rank p Mean Median Log Rank P n-TNBC across stages 284 <0.001 130 <0.001 Stage 1 511 (41) 8.4 --- 7.7 --- Stage 2 508 (41) 7.3 9.0 7.1 --- Stage 3 164 (13) 5.9 6.0 5.1 7.0 Stage 4 51 (4) 2.7 2.0 n.r. --- Overall n-TNBC 1234 (100) 7.3 9.0 7.1 TNBC across stages 31.6 <0.001 17.7 0.001 Stage 1 40 (24) 7.7 --- 7.3 --- Stage 2 92 (55) 6.0 --- 6.3 --- Stage 3 33 (20) 4.3 5.0 4.0 --- Stage 4 2 (1) 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Overall TNBC 167 (100) 6.1 --- 6.2 --- n-TNBC versus TNBC 314 < 0.001 145 < 0.001

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEstrogen and related hormone effects→French-language works237,207→