MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Utilization of the 21-gene assay for breast cancer treatment decision-making in Alberta.

2016· article· en· W2654698479 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gloria B. Roldán Urgoiti, Kirsten Anna Smerdon, Hua Yang, Gilbert Bigras, Judith Hugh, Roger Y. Tsang, Karen King, Sasha M. Lupichuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health ServicesBaker Hughes (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineBreast cancerLogistic regressionCancerLymph nodeOncologyGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e12024 Background: The 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX) was publicly funded in Alberta in March 2014. At the discretion of the consulting oncologist, testing was offered to eligible women to facilitate systemic therapy decision-making. Oncologists recorded their pre-test chemotherapy (CT) recommendation (no, yes, unsure). Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients age ≤ 70 with grade 2 or 3 estrogen receptor positive, HER-2 negative, lymph node negative breast cancer seen at the two tertiary cancer centers in Alberta, Canada (March 2014- June 2015). Patient, tumor, 21-gene assay, and treatment information was recorded. Logistic regression analyses exploring predictors of 21-gene assay use and CT recommendation will be performed. Results: Of 591 eligible patients, 590 were female. Most of the tumors were grade 2 (394; 67%), did not have lymph-vascular invasion (468; 79%) and were 10 to 20 mm in size (T1c; 295; 50%). One hundred and five patients (28%) had 21-gene assay testing completed. In 348 cases (59%) the treating oncologist made treatment recommendations based on patient/tumor characteristics only, 18 (4%) patients were not candidates for CT (3%), 51 (9%) refused CT and 9 (2%) requested CT. For those who had 21-gene assay testing, recurrence risk was low (RS 0-18) in 113 (68%) patients, intermediate (RS 19-30) in 37 (22%), and high ( ≥ 31) in 13 (8%). In two cases, the tissue sample was insufficient for analysis. CT was administered to 1/113 ( < 1%) patients with low risk, 9/37 (24%) with intermediate risk and 13/13 (100%) with high risk. Conclusions: Of eligible patients, 28% had 21-gene assay testing completed. The majority of those tested had a low or intermediate RS and did not receive CT. We will present impact of 21-gene assay results on oncologists’ CT recommendation and regression analyses for predictors of 21-gene assay use, results and CT recommendation. 21-gene assay completed (n = 165) 21-gene assay not done (n = 426) Median age (range) 55 (34-70) 59 (24-70) Local-regional treatment Breast conservation + radiation 99 (60%) 275 (65%) Mastectomy 66 (40%) 151 (35%) Hormonal therapy Yes 159 (96%) 363 (85%) No 6 (4%) 59 (14%) Unknown 0 4 (1%) Chemotherapy Yes 23 (14%) 140 (33%) No 142 (86%) 284 (67%) Unknown 0 2 ( < 1%)

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.376 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→