MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PD6-07: Clinical significance of CD73 expression in triple-negative breast cancer from the BIG 02-98 adjuvant phase III clinical trial

2018· article· en· W2790356395 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Buisseret, Sandra Pommey, Bertrand Allard, Soizic Garaud, MA Bergeron, Isabelle Cousineau, Lieveke Ameye, Marianne Paesmans, JPA Crown, Angelo Di Leo, M. Piccart-Gebhart, Karen Willard‐Gallo, Christos Sotiriou, John Stagg

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdenosine and Purinergic Signaling
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerTriple-negative breast cancerInternal medicineHazard ratioOncologyTumor microenvironmentCancerClinical significanceBiomarkerLymph nodeConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: CD73 is an ecto-enzyme that promotes tumor immune escape through the production of immunosuppressive extracellular adenosine in the tumor microenvironment. Several CD73 inhibitors and adenosine receptor antagonists are being evaluated in phase I clinical trials. Objective: To investigate the prognosis significance of CD73 in human triple-negative breast cancer. Design and setting: This is a prospective-retrospective biomarker analysis. Using multiplex immunofluorescence and image analysis, we assessed CD73 protein expression on tumor cells, tumor-infiltrating leukocytes and stromal cells on full-face sections from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary breast tumors. Participants: 122 samples of triple-negative breast cancer from the BIG 02-98 adjuvant phase III clinical trial were included in our analysis. This trial compared the addition of taxanes to anthracyclines-based chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer. Results: Our results demonstrated that high levels of CD73 expression on epithelial tumor cells were significantly associated with reduced disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Using the median as a threshold between low and high levels of CD73 on epithelial cells, hazard ratios (HR) adjusted for grade, number of positive lymph nodes and tumor size, were of 2.21 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-4.25); p=0.02 for DFS and of 2.47 (95%CI: 1.21-5.07); p=0.01 for OS. CD73 expression negatively correlated with tumor immune infiltration (Spearman's R= -0.50, p<0.0001). Patients with high levels of CD73 and low levels of tumor-infiltrating leukocytes had the worse clinical outcome (HR: 4.24 (1.90-9.45), p<0.001 for DFS, HR: 3.91 (1.65-9.31), p=0.002 for OS) compared to patients with low CD73 and high tumor-immune infiltration. Flow cytometric analysis of tumor-infiltrating leukocytes revealed a high frequency of CD73-expressing B cells and higher CD73 expression on tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells and natural killer cells compared to peripheral blood. Conclusion and relevance: Taken together, our study provides further support that CD73 expression is associated with a poor prognosis and reduced anti-tumor immunity in human triple-negative breast cancer and that targeting CD73 could be a promising strategy to reprogram the tumor microenvironment in this breast cancer subtype. Citation Format: Buisseret L, Pommey S, Allard B, Garaud S, Bergeron MA, Cousineau I, Ameye L, Paesmans M, Crown JPA, Di Leo A, Piccart-Gebhart M, Willard-Gallo K, Sotiriou C, Stagg J. Clinical significance of CD73 expression in triple-negative breast cancer from the BIG 02-98 adjuvant phase III clinical trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD6-07.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdenosine and Purinergic SignalingFrench-language works237,207