MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect of estrogen and progesterone receptor expression on progression-free and overall survival outcomes in low-grade serous ovarian cancer.

2019· article· en· W2946941944 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marta Llauradó Fernández, Amy Dawson, Hannah Kim, Nicole Y.L. Lam, Maegan Bruce, Holly Russell, Joshua Hoenisch, Diane Provencher, Melica Nourmoussavi, Cyril Blake Gilks, Cheng‐Han Lee, Martin Köbel, Nelson K.Y. Wong, Stephanie Scott, Gabriel E. DiMattia, Anne‐Marie Mes‐Masson, Mark Carey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie UniversityVancouver General HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunohistochemistryInternal medicineProgesterone receptorOncologyOvarian cancerEstrogen receptorTissue microarraySerous fluidProportional hazards modelGynecologyProgression-free survivalPopulationEstrogenStage (stratigraphy)CancerBreast cancerOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5560 Background: Research on ER/PR receptor function in low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSC) and the determinants of response to treatment are lacking. A recent study (Sehouli et al.,2018) described ER/PR immunohistochemistry (IHC) cut-points that distinguished PFS. Thus, we report on a group of patients with ER/PR expression by IHC in tumor samples of patients with LGSC and used this information to evaluate survival outcomes. Methods: Clinical information and FFPE sections were obtained from the Canadian Ovarian Experimental Unified Resource (COEUR). Tissue microarray (TMA) sections were stained for ER/PR using standard IHC techniques (MK). 50 stage 3 and 5 stage 4 patients were analyzed. ER/PR expression was scored using a simple scoring system ( < 1% cells staining, 1-50%, and ≥ 50%) and Allred scoring. We compared Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival (PFS and OS) curves using Log rank testing and Cox regression was used to model predictive/prognostic factors. A p-value of 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The mean age of the population was 49.5 years (SD;13.7). Ninety percent of patients were treated by surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). Simple scoring did not discriminate outcomes as well for ER levels. PR Allred score ( < 2, vs 2- < 6 vs ≥6) clearly discriminated KM curves for PFS (p = 0.036) and OS (p = 0.01). For Allred ER score ( < 7 vs.7- < 8 vs 8) did not distinguish PFS (p = 0.4) but notably most patients received PBC after surgery. ER Allred score significantly distinguished OS (p = 0.008). Significant factors on Cox regression for PFS were residuum (p = 0.008;95%CI:1.2-3.1) and PR (p = 0.05;95%CI:0.39-0.99), whereas for OS ER(p = 0.01:95%CI:0.2-0.8) and residuum (p = 0.04;95%CI:1-2.8). Conclusions: ER/PR expression by Allred scoring was associated with PFS and OS. Patients will benefit from much needed research on ER/PR prediction/prognosis in LGSC. This work can inform clinical trials selection/stratification and patient selection for endocrine treatment.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.400 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→