MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association between androgen receptor (AR) expression, Ki-67, and the 21-gene recurrence score in early breast cancer.

2014· article· en· W2725442277 on OpenAlexaffabout
Francisco Vera-Badillo, Martin C. Chang, Gordana Kuruzar, Alberto Ocaña, Arnoud J. Templeton, Boštjan Šeruga, Mustafa Al-Mubarak, Robyn Goldstein, Philippe L. Bédard, Ian F. Tannock, Eitan Amir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerAndrogen receptorEstrogen receptorProgesterone receptorInternal medicineCancerOncologyLymph nodeGynecologyPathologyProstate cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

547 Background: AR expression is a favorable prognostic factor in estrogen receptor (ER) positive and ER negative breast cancer. Here we explore the association between AR, Ki67, and the 21-gene recurrence score (RS). We hypothesized that ER-positive breast cancers with high AR expression will be associated with a low Ki67 and RS. Methods: Sequential patients with lymph node negative, ER positive and HER2 negative breast cancer who had surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto between January 2010 and October 2013 and in whom the RS was requested were identified. Archival tissue was sectioned and stained for AR (AR441 clone, Dako) and Ki67 (MIB-1 clone, Dako) and then visualized by protein polymer (MACH4, Biocare) and DAB chromogen. AR was scored using the Allred system and Ki67 by manual count (using the Ki67 working group recommendations) by a single pathologist. Associations between RS and AR, age, grade, mitotic score, Ki67, and the extent of ER and progesterone receptor (PgR) expression were assessed using linear regression. Ki67 was assessed as a continuous and dichotomous variable (using a cut off of 14%). Statistical significance of this exploratory study was defined as p<0.10. Results: Seventy cases satisfied criteria for analysis. Median age was 59.5 years, mean tumor size was 1.8 cm (range 0.6-3.9 cm), 24% were grade 1, 66% grade 2 and 10% grade 3. Most tumors had high AR expression (median Allred score = 8, 97% had score ≥4). Median RS was 15 (range 1-53). AR expression showed a modest positive correlation with ER (R=0.37), but no correlation with PgR (R=0.09) or Ki67 (R=-0.18). In univariable analysis, AR (p=0.01), ER (p<0.001) and PgR (p<0.001) had significant negative associations with the RS. Ki67 had a non-significant positive association with RS (p=0.11 and p=0.16 for continuous and cut off analyses, respectively). Age (p=0.93), grade (p=0.40) and mitotic count (p=0.23) showed no association with RS. Multivariable analysis showed similar associations with RS (AR [p=0.07], ER [p=0.05], PgR [p=0.001]). Conclusions: AR is not associated with proliferative index (Ki67) but is associated with lower probability of disease recurrence (Low RS).

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.338 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→