MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P4-15-01: Integration of clinical and pathological data with the DCIS score to predict the risk of local recurrence

2018· article· en· W2790568424 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lawrence Paszat, Rinku Sutradhar, Li Zhou, Nafisha Lalani, Sharon Nofech‐Mozes, Eileen Rakovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCovariateStatisticsProportional hazards modelNomogramPopulationAkaike information criterionConcordanceOncologyInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Prediction of local recurrence (LR) risk after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is needed to guide decisions regarding risks and benefits of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). We aim to determine the optimal combination of clinical and pathological characteristics with the Oncotype DCIS Score (DS) to predict individualized 10 year risks of local recurrence (LR) after BCS (with or without RT) for DCIS and develop a web-based nomogram / risk calculator. Methods: DS (continuous, categorical risk groups low/intermediate/high) and complete clinico-pathological data (age, tumor size, nuclear grade, comedonecrosis, multifocality, margin width and receipt of breast RT) are available for 1102 cases from the Ontario population cohort of pure DCIS treated by BCS (981 cases with negative margins, 121 cases with positive margins). We examined various categorizations of discrete variables, and transformations of continuous variables, and used model selection procedures to determine the best fitting Cox proportional hazards regression model of LR according to the c-statistic, Akaike Information Criterion, and log-likelihood. We tested all two-way interactions and interactions with time. The 10-year probability of LR was calculated for each woman using the estimate of the baseline survival function and the estimate of the linear predictor, which is a function of the regression parameter estimates and specific covariate values. Model calibration will be explored by comparing observed versus predicted risk of LR, and the model's discriminative ability will be assessed by the concordance index. Model validation will be conducted via bootstrapping approaches. Results: In the best fitting main effects full model, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) (95% confidence intervals (CI)) for LR included: intermediate/ high risk DS vs. low risk (HR =1.96 (1.39, 2.74)), age < 50 years at diagnosis vs. age>= 50 (HR = 1.62 (1.16, 2.25)), square root of tumor size (HR/mm = 1.24 (1.11, 1.38)), comedonecrosis > 30% vs. <=30% (HR=1.53 (1.08, 2.16)), multifocality ( HR=2.01 (1.45, 2.77)), and receipt of RT ( HR=0.50 (0.37, 0.68)). There was a significant interaction between tumor size and DS but not between DS and RT. Among women with a low risk DS and age >= 50, tumor size <= 10 mm, <= 30% comedo necrosis, no multifocality, low or moderate nuclear grade and negative margins, the average predicted 10 year LR risk = 6.8% (range 6.4% - 7.6%) after treatment by BCS without RT, and 3.6% (range 3.4% - 3.8%) after BCS+RT (an absolute benefit of 3.2% from RT). Among women with intermediate/high risk DS and the same low risk clinical-pathological features, the average predicted 10 year LR risk = 19.0% (range 18.3% - 20.0%) without RT, and 9.5% (range 9.1% - 10.3%) with RT (an absolute benefit of 9.5% from RT). Conclusion: This prediction model combines clinical and pathological features with the DS to improve estimates of local recurrence risk after BCS alone and the absolute benefit with RT, which can improve decision making in DCIS. After calibration and validation, it will be the basis of a web-based nomogram / risk calculator. It also demonstrates the importance of molecular testing for studies of the de-escalation of therapy for DCIS. Citation Format: Paszat L, Sutradhar R, Zhou L, Lalani N, Nofech-Mozes S, Rakovitch E. Integration of clinical and pathological data with the DCIS score to predict the risk of local recurrence [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 P4-15-01.

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)0.006
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→