MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency have prognostic significance in low-risk endometrioid endometrial cancers?

2019· article· en· W2947186615 on OpenAlexaffabout
Soyoun Rachel Kim, Annick Pina, Arianne Albert, Jessica N. McAlpine, Robert Wolber, Cyril Blake Gilks, Mark Carey, Janice S. Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthLions Gate HospitalBC Cancer AgencyUniversité de MontréalWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerOncologyInternal medicineHazard ratioProportional hazards modelLynch syndromeCohortPopulationRetrospective cohort studyDNA mismatch repairCancerGynecologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17122 Background: Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency is observed in 25-30% of all endometrial cancers. This can be detected by the absence of MMR protein staining on immunohistochemistry (IHC), and is used in many jurisdictions as a screen for an inherited mutation in one of the MMR genes (Lynch Syndrome). Only 10% of women with MMR deficiency (MMRd) have Lynch syndrome, but MMRd may still have prognostic significance. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between MMR deficient and proficient low-risk endometrioid endometrial cancers (stage IA, grade 1/2). Methods: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of all low-risk endometrial cancers from Vancouver Coastal Health authority region from 2011 to 2016 that were assessed for MMR deficiency (MMRd). Primary outcome measures were recurrence rates expressed per person-years (py), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards model estimated the association between MMRd and recurrence and death after adjustment for covariates, expressed as hazard ratios (HR). Results: There were 475 low-risk patients, including 131 MMRd (27.6%) and 345 MMRp (proficient) patients. Women with MMRd tumors had higher recurrence rates (3.53p100py vs 1.21p100py) and worse PFS (p = 0.0082) compared to women with MMRp tumors. After adjustment for age, LVSI status, adjuvant therapy, and post-operative grade, MMRd status remained associated with a higher risk of recurrence (HR 2.99, 95% CI 1.27-7.04). There was no significant difference in OS between MMR groups (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.57-3.33). Conclusions: In low-risk stage IA grade 1 or 2 endometrioid endometrial cancers, MMR deficiency is associated with a higher recurrence rate than in MMR proficient cases, after adjustment for covariates, implying that MMR deficiency reflects a different biology in endometrial cancer.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer→French-language works237,207→