MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P4-09-01: The DCIS score predicts risk of local recurrence risk after breast-conserving surgery more accurately than ER plus HER2

2019· article· en· W2943920148 on OpenAlexaff
Eileen Rakovitch, Rinku Sutradhar, Lei Zhou, Sharon Nofech‐Mozes, Wahid T. Hanna, L Paszat

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2019
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
KeywordsMedicineCovariateBreast-conserving surgeryProportional hazards modelBreast cancerDuctal carcinomaInternal medicineMastectomyOncologyCancerGynecologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Improved individual prediction of 10 yr local recurrence (LR) risk following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is needed to identify women at low risk, for whom radiotherapy (RT) may be omitted. We hypothesized that LR prediction that includes the Oncotype DCIS score (DS) would be more accurate, and would identify more women with very low LR risks compared to models that include estrogen receptor (ER) plus HER2 without the DS. Methods: Three predictive models of LR (clinicopathological factors (CPFs) alone; CPFs+ER+HER2; CPFs+DS) were developed and compared in 1,102 cases of DCIS for whom complete covariate and outcome data were available. CPFs included age at diagnosis, lesion size, nuclear grade, comedonecrosis, multifocality, and resection margin width. Categorizations of discrete variables and transformations of continuous variables were examined in Cox models; two-way interactions and interactions with time were assessed. Internal validation was performed by bootstrapping. Individual predicted 10-yr LR risks after treatment with BCS alone were computed from covariate values, estimated regression parameters and the estimated baseline survival function. Model performance was assessed by c-statistics and calibration plots. Results: 863/1,102 (78.3%) women were age >= 50 years at diagnosis. Lesion size was <= 10 mm in 555/1,102 (50.4%). Nuclear grade was low or moderate in 62.4%. Comedonecrosis was present in 22.1%. Multifocality was observed in 25.2%. Post-BCS RT was received by 54.4%. Mean DS = 37.49 (sd 23.29). DS risk category = low in 611/1,102 (55.4%). ER = positive in 1,025 /1,102 (93.0%) cases. HER2 overexpression = positive in 212/1,102 (19.2%), equivocal in 95 / 1,102 (8.6%) and negative in 795 / 1,102 (72.1%) cases. Adjusting for all CPFs, the hazard ratios (HR) for LR per 50-unit increase in DS = 2.00 (95% CI 1.42, 2.83), for ER positive = 0.58 (95% CI 0.36, 0.95) and for HER2 positive = 0.73 (95% CI 0.41, 1.30). The strongest prediction model incorporated CPFs+DS. C-statistics for CPFs+DS, CPFs+ER+HER2, or CPFs alone models were 0.7025, 0.6879, and 0.6825. The CPFs+DS model was better calibrated at predicting low (<=10%) individual 10-yr LR risks after BCS alone than models incorporating CPF+ER+HER2 or CPFs alone, evidenced by c-statistics and plots of observed by predicted risks. Specifically, among women age >= 50 with no adverse CPFs, the CPFs+DS model identified the greatest proportion of women (62.3%) with predicted 10-year LR risk <= 10% without RT, compared to the CPFs+ER+HER2 (50.9%) or CPFs alone (46.5%) models. When applying the prediction equations to similar women as those in the cohort who were treated with RT, the CPFs+DS model again identified the greatest proportion of women (44.4%) with a low predicted 10-yr LR risk without RT (for whom RT could have been omitted) compared to the CPFs+ER+HER2 model (39.4%) and the CPFs alone model (32.3%). Conclusion: Individual prediction of LR risk that incorporates the DCIS score plus clinicopathological factors is more accurate than prediction models based on ER plus HER2, and identifies a higher proportion of women with a low predicted risk of LR after BCS alone, for whom radiotherapy may be omitted. Citation Format: Rakovitch E, Sutradhar R, Zhou L, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Paszat L. The DCIS score predicts risk of local recurrence risk after breast-conserving surgery more accurately than ER plus HER2 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-09-01.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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