MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P6-13-04: IMPACt trial: MammaPrint and BluePrint molecular subtyping guide treatment decisions in breast cancer

2018· article· en· W2793884481 on OpenAlexaff
Hatem Soliman, Esther H. Rehmus, Vishwa Shah, Gordan Srkalović, RL Mahtani, EG Levine, Blanche H. Mavromatis, Jayanthi Srinivasiah, Mohammad Kassar, Robert Gabordi, Erin Yoder, R Qamar, William Audeh

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Confidence intervalOncologyChemotherapySubtypingClinical trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: IMPACt is a prospective, case-only study to measure the effect of MammaPrint (MP) and BluePrint (BP) on treatment decisions in breast cancer patients. Here, we report the results of the primary objective in women aged ≥18 years with histologically proven invasive stage I-II, hormone receptor (HR) positive, and HER2-negative breast cancer. Methods: The study included 369 women from 18 US institutions. The recommended treatment plan was captured before and after receiving results for MP and BP. Treatment was started after obtaining results. In addition to the effect of results on physician treatment decisions involving chemotherapy (CT) and physician confidence, the distribution of MP High Risk (HR) and Low Risk (LR) patients was also evaluated. Results: MP classified patients to 62% (n=228) LR and 38% (n=141) HR. Treatment decisions were changed for 25% (n=92) of women after receiving MP and BP results. Of the LR patients initially prescribed CT, 68% (45/66) had CT removed from their treatment recommendation. Of the HR patients who initially were not prescribed CT, 66% (42/64) had CT added. Overall, 89% (202/228) of LR patients did not receive CT, and likewise 84% (119/141) of HR patients did receive CT after receiving MP. Among those who did not change treatment (n=277), 68% of physicians reported having greater confidence in their prescribed therapy. Conclusions: The IMPACt trial shows MP generates a 25% overall treatment change in clinical practice. The highest impact is for women with LR results, where 68% are spared chemotherapy in favor of endocrine therapy alone. Additionally, 73% of physicians report having higher confidence in treatment decisions for their patient after MP. Table 1: Treatment changesTreatment Decision Pre- to Post-MPMP HRMP LRTotalCT to CT772198no CT tp CT42547CT to no CT04545no CT to no CT22157179Total141228369 Citation Format: Soliman H, Rehmus E, Shah V, Srkalovic G, Mahtani R, Levine E, Mavromatis B, Srinivasiah J, Kassar M, Gabordi R, Yoder E, Qamar R, Audeh W, IMPACt Investigators Group I. IMPACt trial: MammaPrint and BluePrint molecular subtyping guide treatment decisions in breast cancer [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 P6-13-04.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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