MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Clinical outcomes of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative and progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive invasive breast cancer.

2014· article· en· W2767552555 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Chan, Martin C. Chang, R. Sánchez González, Belinda Lategan, E. del Barco, Francisco Vera-Badillo, Paula Quesada, Robyn Goldstein, Ignacio Cruz‐González, Alberto Ocaña, Juan Jesús Cruz, Eitan Amir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProgesterone receptorEstrogen receptorInternal medicineBreast cancerOncologyProportional hazards modelCancerSurvival analysisEstrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

567 Background: Hormone receptor (HR) expression has prognostic and predictive significance in breast cancer. Most HR-positive tumors are ER positive (ER+). In contrast, tumors that are ER negative (ER-) and PgR positive (PgR+) are uncommon and may represent an analytic artifact. We have previously shown that ER-/PgR+ tumors have been associated with younger age, higher grade, and Her2/neu over-expression suggesting a distinct biologic entity (Proceedings 103rdUSCAP Meeting). Here we evaluated clinical outcomes of ER-/PgR+ breast cancers. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a well-characterized database comprising 816 sequential patients diagnosed with early stage invasive breast carcinoma in Salamanca, Spain. Outcomes of interest were time to relapse (TTR) and overall survival (OS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was conducted to assess the association of ER-/PgR+ with TTR and OS in comparison to ER+ and to ER- and PgR negative (ER-/PgR-) tumors. Results: Fifty-six patients (7%) had ER-/PgR+, 624 (77%) had ER+ and 136 (17%) had ER-/PgR- phenotypes. For ER-/PgR+, ER+ and ER-/PgR- tumors, five-year relapse rates were 36%, 20% and 42%, and five-year OS was 92%, 93% and 66%, respectively. ER-/PgR+ showed annual hazards of relapse that were intermediate between ER+ and ER-/PgR- patients. Relapses occurred early in follow-up for ER-/PgR+ and ER-/PgR- tumors with few relapses beyond year 6. ER+ tumors showed a continuous risk of relapse throughout follow-up. Multivariable analysis for TTR is shown in the Table. Only nodal status and receptor group were associated with worse OS. Conclusions: ER-/PgR+ tumors are a rare, but defined subgroup. They have a higher risk of relapse than ER+ tumors, but lower than ER-/PgR- tumors. The timing of relapse more closely resembles ER-/PgR- disease, whereas overall survival more closely resembles ER+ disease. Further research on the role of PgR in breast carcinogenesis is warranted. Variable Hazard ratio 95% CI p Age at diagnosis 0.97 0.96-0.98 <0.001 Tumor size 1.13 1.04-1.23 0.006 Nodal metastases 2.22 1.49-3.33 <0.001 Grade 1.36 1.00-1.85 0.048 Receptor group ER+ ER-/PgR+ ER-/PgR- - Ref 1.57 3.64 - Ref 0.79-3.12 1.69-7.82 - Ref 0.20 0.001

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEstrogen and related hormone effects→French-language works237,207→