MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Can we identify a group of breast cancer patients with a good prognosis despite four or more positive (4+) axillary nodes using a tissue microarray (TMA)?

2007· article· en· W2981254457 on OpenAlexaff
Simon J. Crabb, Chris Bajdik, Caroline Speers, David G. Huntsman, Karen A. Gelmon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineOncologyBiomarkerAxillary lymph nodesImmunohistochemistryProportional hazards modelUnivariate analysisEstrogen receptorTissue microarrayStage (stratigraphy)CancerPathologyMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10582 Background: Although breast cancer with 4+ axillary lymph nodes generally carries a poor prognosis, we hypothesized that a good prognostic subgroup of such patients would be identifiable by immunohistochemical (IHC) biomarkers. Methods: Patients with primary breast cancer with 4+ axillary nodes and no metastatic disease at diagnosis were identified from a large clinically annotated TMA of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded archival breast cancers and analyzed for eight IHC based biomarkers: estrogen receptor, HER2, carbonic anhydrase IX, EGFR, CK 5/6, progesterone receptor, p53 and Ki67. Expression of each biomarker was scored 0 or 1 to indicate good or bad prognosis based on univariate analysis of relapse free survival (RFS). Patients were banded as having a total score of 0 (i.e. each biomarker predicted a good outcome), 1–4 or 5–8. Kaplan Meier and Cox regression analysis of RFS outcomes was performed. 10 year RFS for each band was compared to the mean of predicted outcomes based on the prognostic tool Adjuvant! ( www.adjuvantonline.com ). Results: 313 eligible patients were identified and complete data were available for 228. The subset of 228 was similar to the larger group of 313 with respect to RFS and conventional prognostic factors. 10 year RFS for the 228 patients was 39.5% (standard error, SE 3.4%). The subgroup of 37 (16%) scoring zero for all 8 biomarkers had a mean 10 year RFS of 77.6% (SE 7.0). Mean 10 year RFS for the bands scoring 1–4 (154 patients, 68%) and 5–8 (37 patients, 16%) were 34.9% (SE 4.1) and 19.0% (SE 6.9) respectively. Mean 10 year RFS predictions by Adjuvant! were 35.9% (SE 2.6), 34.5% (SE 1.2) and 34.3% (SE 2.3) respectively. In multivariate analysis with conventional prognostic factors, the banded biomarker score retained statistical significance for predicting RFS (p=0.0007) along with estrogen receptor status (p=0.03) and tumour size (p=0.01). Conclusions: This TMA biomarker panel identified a breast cancer subgroup with good prognosis despite extensive axillary node involvement. Long term outcome was markedly better than that predicted by conventional prognostic factors. If validated, treatment decisions and clinical trial stratification might be modified using this new score. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→