MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626019450 · doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4329-y

Development of a Ki-67-based clinical trial assay for neoadjuvant endocrine therapy response monitoring in breast cancer

2017· article· en· W2626019450 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rodrigo Gonçalves, Katherine DeSchryver, X. Cynthia, Tao Yu, Jeremy Hoog, Maggie C.U. Cheang, Erika C. Crouch, Neha Dahiya, Souzan Sanati, Michael Barnes, Luı́s Otávio Sarian, John A. Olson, D. Craig Allred, Matthew J. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Cancer Research and Treatment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationFoundation for Barnes-Jewish HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaBreast Cancer Research FoundationAvon Foundation for Women
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerConcordanceInternal medicineNeoadjuvant therapyClinical trialOncologyTriageCancerClinical endpoint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The recent publication of the ACOSOG Z1031 trial results demonstrated that Ki-67 proliferation marker-based neoadjuvant endocrine therapy response monitoring could be used for tailoring the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER+HER2-negative breast cancer patients. In this paper, we describe the development of the Ki-67 clinical trial assay used for this study. METHODS: Ki-67 assay assessment focused on reproducing a 2.7% Ki-67 cut-point (CP) required for calculating the Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index and a 10% CP for poor endocrine therapy response identification within the first month of neoadjuvant endocrine treatment. Image analysis was assessed to increase the efficiency of the scoring process. Clinical outcome concordance for two independent Ki-67 scores was the primary performance metric. RESULTS: Discordant scores led to a triage approach where cases with complex histological features that software algorithms could not resolve were flagged for visual point counting (17%). The final Ki-67 scoring approach was run on T1/2 N0 cases from the P024 and POL trials (N = 58). The percent positive agreement for the 2.7% CP was 87.5% (95% CI 61.7-98.5%); percent negative agreement 88.9% (95% CI: 65.3-98.6%). Minor discordance did not affect the ability to predict similar relapse-free outcomes (Log-Rank P = 0.044 and P = 0.055). The data for the 10% early triage CP in the POL trial were similar (N = 66), the percentage positive agreement was 100%, and percent negative agreement 93.55% (95% CI: 78.58-99.21%). The independent survival predictions were concordant (Log-rank P = 0.0001 and P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an efficient and reproducible Ki-67 scoring system that was approved by the Clinical Trials Evaluation Program for NCI-supported neoadjuvant endocrine therapy trials. Using the methodology described here, investigators are able to identify a subgroup of patients with ER+HER2-negative breast cancer that can be safely managed without the need of adjuvant chemotherapy.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreast Cancer Research and TreatmentSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207