MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766084854 · doi:10.3747/co.24.3595

Clinical Utility of Multigene Profiling Assays in Early-Stage Breast Cancer

2017· article· en· W2766084854 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Martin C. Chang, Lesley Souter, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Michael Rutherford, Philippe L. Bédard, Maureen Trudeau, Jennifer Hart, Andrea Eisen

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHealth Sciences NorthUniversity Health NetworkCancer Care OntarioMcMaster UniversityJuravinski HospitalOccupational Cancer Research CentreMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncologyBreast cancerGuidelineMEDLINEInternal medicineClinical PracticeTamoxifenBioinformaticsGynecologyFamily medicineCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This clinical practice guideline was developed to determine the level of evidence supporting the clinical utility of commercially available multigene profiling assays and to provide guidance about whether certain breast cancer patient populations in Ontario would benefit from alternative tests in addition to Oncotype dx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.). METHODS: A systematic electronic Ovid search of the medline and embase databases sought out systematic reviews and primary literature. A systematic review and practice guideline was written by a working group and was then reviewed and approved by Cancer Care Ontario's Molecular Oncology Advisory Committee. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies assessing the clinical utility of Oncotype dx, Prosigna (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.), EndoPredict (Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, U.S.A.), and MammaPrint (Agendia, Irvine, CA, U.S.A.) were included in the evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical utility of multigene profiling assays is currently established for an appropriate subset of patients with estrogen receptor-positive, her2-negative, node-negative breast cancer for whom a decision to give chemotherapy is difficult to make. For patients with estrogen receptor-positive tumours who receive tamoxifen alone, Oncotype dx, Prosigna, and EndoPredict validly identify a low-risk population with favourable outcomes, indicating that a low-risk assay result is actionable and the decision to withhold chemotherapy is supported. Clinical evidence indicates that a high Oncotype dx recurrence score can predict for chemotherapy benefit, but a high Prosigna or EndoPredict score, although prognostic, is not, based on clinical trial evidence, directly actionable. Prosigna and EndoPredict are statistically more likely to identify a population at risk for recurrence beyond 5 years, but that information is currently not actionable because of a lack of interventional studies.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207