MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002686079 · doi:10.1080/07357907.2020.1720223

Amplification of Chromosome 17 Centromere (CEP17) in Breast Cancer Patients with a Result of HER2 2± by Immunohistochemistry

2020· article· en· W3002686079 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Davies, Ioannis A. Voutsadakis

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Investigation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsEssar Steel Algoma (Canada)Sault Area HospitalNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromosome 17 (human)Breast cancerInternal medicineBiologyImmunohistochemistryChromosomeMedicineFluorescence in situ hybridizationCancerPathologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Amplification of the centromeric region of chromosome 17 (CEP17) as measured by In Situ Hybridization (ISH) of the CEP17 probe is used clinically as part of the ISH assay for HER2 status determination in breast cancer. The value of amplification of CEP17 beyond its use in the HER2 ISH test has not been fully explored.Methods: A retrospective review of patients with breast cancer that had a dual probe HER2/CEP17 FISH test during an eight-year period was performed. Data on demographic and cancer-specific characteristics of the included patients were extracted. The group of patients with an amplified CEP17 defined as mean copy number of ≥3 per nucleus was compared with the group without amplification.Results: Two hundred and twelve patients were eligible and included in the analysis. Amplification of CEP17 was observed in 39 patients (18.4%). All patients in the amplified group had a concomitant amplification of HER2 (mean copy number ≥3 per nucleus). In the CEP17 non-amplified group 82 of 172 patients (47.7%) had an amplified HER2 status. More patients in the amplified group had a clinical HER2+ status according to the 3-protein classifier (30.8% versus 12.3% in the non-amplified group) and fewer patients in the amplified group had a clinical ER+/HER2- status (66.7% versus 81.3% in the non-amplified group, x2 p = .01). Other significant differences between the amplified and CEP17 non-amplified groups were observed in their lymph node (LN) status (56.4% of patients in the amplified group versus 38.8% in the non-amplified group were lymph node positive, p = .04) and in the nuclear heterogeneity component of grade (91.2% of patients in the amplified group were nuclear grade 3 versus 67.1% in the non-amplified group, p = .005). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in overall stage, grade, menopause status or histology. Recurrence Free Survival (RFS) was shorter in stage I to III patients with an amplified CEP17 compared with the non-amplified group.Conclusion: Patients with amplification of CEP17 had a co-amplified HER2 and were more commonly HER2+, LN positive and grade 3 in the nuclear component of grade.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer InvestigationSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207