Prognostic and predictive value of a low estrogen receptor expression in breast cancer: A retrospective study from a reference center.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
627 Background: Threshold of estrogen receptors positivity in breast cancer has been lowered to ≥1% of stained cells by immunohistochemistry testing. This change was based on experts’ recommendations from the 2009 St Gallen International Expert Consensus and from the 2010 guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP). However few studies support these guidelines and the benefit of treating weakly positive estrogen receptor tumors (1-9%) is unknown. Methods: We identified 2221 breast cancer patients with estrogen receptors tested by ligand-based assay, treated and followed in our institution between 1976 and 2008. Date and cause of death were identified through linkage to Quebec Mortality File. A multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model was used to assess the effect of estrogen receptor levels on breast cancer mortality in patients who received hormonal therapy (tamoxifen). Results: In patients with low estrogen receptors, 17% (383 patients) were within 0-3 fmol/mg of cytosol and 12% (266 patients) were within 4-9 fmol/mg of cytosol. Patients with estrogen receptor levels of 0-3, 4-9, 10-19, 20-49, and ≥50 fmol/mg of cytosol had a 20-year breast cancer survival rate of 56%, 56%, 63%, 71% and 60% respectively. From the 2221 patients, 661 (29.8%) received hormonal therapy. In these patients, estrogen receptor levels of 0-3, 4-9, 10-19, 20-49 and ≥50 fmol/mg of cytosol were associated with lower breast cancer mortality (HR (p-value) of 1.00 (reference), 0.59 (0.09), 0.19 (<0.0001), 0.26 (<0.0001) and 0.31 (<0.0001) respectively); with significant mortality reduction only for estrogen receptor levels ≥10 fmol/mg of cytosol. Conclusions: A weak expression of estrogen receptors (<10 fmol/mg) in breast cancer is associated with increase breast cancer mortality. Our results did not show a significant benefit to treat these patients with hormonal therapy as oppose to those with estrogen receptor levels ≥10 fmol/mg of cytosol. To further support these findings, a similar study should be repeated in patients with estrogen receptors tested by immunohistochemistry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".