MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971055962 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz289

Breast Cancer Index and prediction of benefit from extended endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients treated in the Adjuvant Tamoxifen—To Offer More? (aTTom) trial

2019· article· en· W2971055962 on OpenAlexafffund
John M.S. Bartlett, Dennis C. Sgroi, Kai Treuner, Y. Zhang, Ikhlaaq Ahmed, Tammy Piper, Ranelle Salunga, Elena F. Brachtel, Sarah Pirrie, Catherine A. Schnabel, Daniel Rea

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersCancer Research UKOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchMassachusetts General HospitalBreast Cancer Research FoundationPfizerBioTheranostics
KeywordsMedicineTamoxifenBreast cancerHazard ratioOncologyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelAdjuvant therapyClinical endpointCancerConfidence intervalGynecologyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Extending the duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy reduces the risk of recurrence in a subset of women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. Validated predictive biomarkers of endocrine response could significantly improve patient selection for extended therapy. Breast cancer index (BCI) [HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (H/I)] was evaluated for its ability to predict benefit from extended endocrine therapy in patients previously randomized in the Adjuvant Tamoxifen-To Offer More? (aTTom) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Trans-aTTom is a multi-institutional, prospective-retrospective study in patients with available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary tumor blocks. BCI testing and central determination of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status by immunohistochemistry were carried out blinded to clinical outcome. Survival endpoints were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression with recurrence-free interval (RFI) as the primary endpoint. Interaction between extended endocrine therapy and BCI (H/I) was assessed using the likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Of 583 HR+, N+ patients analyzed, 49% classified as BCI (H/I)-High derived a significant benefit from 10 versus 5 years of tamoxifen treatment [hazard ratio (HR): 0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.86; 10.2% absolute risk reduction based on RFI, P = 0.027]. BCI (H/I)-low patients showed no significant benefit from extended endocrine therapy (HR: 1.07; 95% CI 0.69-1.65; -0.2% absolute risk reduction; P = 0.768). Continuous BCI (H/I) levels predicted the magnitude of benefit from extended tamoxifen, whereas centralized ER and PR did not. Interaction between extended tamoxifen treatment and BCI (H/I) was statistically significant (P = 0.012), adjusting for clinicopathological factors. CONCLUSION: BCI by high H/I expression was predictive of endocrine response and identified a subset of HR+, N+ patients with significant benefit from 10 versus 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. These data provide further validation, consistent with previous MA.17 data, establishing level 1B evidence for BCI as a predictive biomarker of benefit from extended endocrine therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17222211; NCT00003678.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations206
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207