MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breast cancer biomarker discordance between primary and sites of metastasis: A systematic review.

2013· article· en· W2757886480 on OpenAlexaff
Isis Ching Yeung, Mark Clemons, Christina Addison, Brian Hutton, Xiaofu Zhu, Sasha Mazzerello, Angel Arnaout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiomarkerBreast cancerOncologyCancerInternal medicineMetastasisPrimary tumorBrain metastasisLymph nodeLung cancerDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e11574 Background: Systemic treatment choices for breast cancer patients with recurrent disease are usually based on the ER/PR/Her2 biomarker status of the primary cancer. Biomarker discordance between the primary and metastatic sites is well recognised and could have important therapeutic implications. A systematic review was conducted to assess the extent of biomarker discordance between the primary cancer and metastasis, and whether is influenced by the site of metastasis. Methods: An electronic search of multiple literature databases implemented by an information scientist was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes of ER/PR/Her2 receptor stability between primary site and recurrent disease. Seven reviewers independently screened the 5034 abstracts and full text articles, which were identified according to pre-defined selection criteria. The same reviewers performed data collection from all included studies. Studies that were identified reported on receptor conversion between primary sites of breast cancer and various sites of metastasis including lymph node, liver, brain, lung, skin, GI sites and bone marrow. Results: Preliminary results from 385 eligible studies consistently demonstrated discordance between the primary and metastatic sites. When discordance occurred, the general trend was for loss of hormone receptor. ER hormone status was more stable (discordance 10.2-32.5%) than PR (discordance 25.5-40.7%). HER2 was found to have lower rates of discordance (2.6-14.5%). In general, higher ER/PR discordance was found in bone (40-68%) and liver (0-54%) when compared to other sites brain (36%), lung (9-18%), skin (6-22%), GI (15-40%). In the prospective studies, biomarker discordance led to change in patient management in up to 20% of the patient population. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that biomarker discordance between primary and distant metastases does occur in breast cancer, occurs more frequently with PR, and the extent of discordance is influenced by the site of metastasis. Further research is required to have a better explanation about the pathophysiology of the biomarker status change and its clinical implications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207