MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772922119 · doi:10.1080/0284186x.2017.1403044

The ability of PAM50 risk of recurrence score to predict 10-year distant recurrence in hormone receptor-positive postmenopausal women with special histological subtypes

2017· article· en· W2772922119 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Vibeke Lænkholm, Maj‐Britt Jensen, Jens Ole Eriksen, Wesley Buckingham, Sean Ferree, Torsten O. Nielsen, Bent Ejlertsen

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oncologica · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePostmenopausal womenInternal medicineOncologyHormone therapyHormone receptorGynecologyCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The Prosigna-PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) score has been validated in randomized clinical trials to predict 10-year distant recurrence (DR) in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Here, we examine the ability of Prosigna for predicting DR at 10 years in a subgroup of postmenopausal breast cancer patients with special histological subtypes. METHODS: Using the population based Danish Breast Cancer Group database, follow-up data were collected on all patients diagnosed from 2000 to 2003 with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) normal breast cancer who by nationwide guidelines were treated with 5 year of endocrine therapy (N = 2558). Among patients with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes or a tumor size >20 mm, we identified 1570 with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 89 with special histological subtypes (apocrine, medullary, mucinous, papillary, secretory, tubular, neuroendocrine) who were tested with Prosigna. Fine and Gray models were applied to determine the prognostic value of the Prosigna-PAM50 ROR score for DR special subtypes as compared to IDC. RESULTS: Median follow-up for DR was 9.2 year and for OS 15.2 year. The 10-year DR rate for the special subtypes was 9.2% (95% CI: 4.0% to 17.2%) as compared to 13.7% (95% CI: 11.9% to 15.7%) for IDC. The 10-year OS was 74.2% (95% CI: 63.7% to 82.0%) for the special subtypes and 75.4% (95% CI: 73.2% to 77.4%) for IDC. Prosigna showed a statistical significant association of the continuous ROR score with risk of DR for both IDC and the special subtypes (IDC: p < .0001; special subtypes: p = .01). CONCLUSION: In the present study, we demonstrated that Prosigna-PAM50 continuous ROR score added significant prognostic information for 10-year DR in postmenopausal patients with special subtypes (tumor size >20 mm or 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes) and ER-positive, HER2-normal early breast cancer.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OncologicaSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207