Abstract P4-07-02: Clinicopathological features and BRCA 1/2 status in a large prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Breast cancer arising in young women is more likely to have higher risk features than in older women and more likely to be associated with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We previously reported a higher distribution of luminal B-like tumors among young women. Here we present the clinical and pathologic features of invasive disease in a large prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer, and associations between surrogate molecular subtype and BRCA 1/2 mutation status. Methods: Among 1,297 young women (aged ≤40 years) with breast cancer enrolled from 2006-2016, tumor histopathological features were examined by central review, and biomarker status was extracted from pathology reports. Based on histologic grade and biomarker expression, invasive tumors were categorized as luminal A-like (LA=ER/PR+ and HER2-, histologic grade 1 or 2), luminal B-like (LB=ER/PR+ and HER2+, or ER/PR+, HER2-, and grade 3), HER2 enriched (E) (ER/PR- and HER2+) or triple negative (TN=ER-, PR- and HER2-). Tumor stage, clinical characteristics, and BRCA status were retrieved by medical record review (and patient survey for BRCA status if not in medical record). Results: The majority of women presented with early stage invasive disease (8% stage 0, 32% stage 1, 40% stage 2, 15% stage 3; 5% stage 4). Among invasive tumors with evaluable molecular phenotype (n=1,136), 57% were high grade and the distribution of subtypes was: 33% LA, 42% LB, 8% HER2E, and 16% TN (Table 1). Among different age groups (≤ 30, 31-35, and 36-40 years), there were no significant differences in molecular phenotype, tumor stage, tumor grade or histopathological features including presence of tumor necrosis, lymphocytic infiltration, and central fibrotic focus. 96% of women were tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations, and 127 (11%) tested positive: 65% were BRCA1+, and 35% were BRCA2+ (table 2). Among BRCA1+ patients, 2% of cancers were LA, 30% LB, 5% HER2E, and 62% TN; among BRCA2+, 29% were LA, 56% LB, 2% HER2E, and 13% TN. These proportions were relatively consistent across age groups. BRCA1+ patients’ tumors were proportionately more TN and BRCA2+ patients’ tumors more likely to be LB/HER2 negative (p<0.0001), irrespective of age category. Conclusion: In a large cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤40, there was no association between age group (≤ 30, 31-35, vs. 36-40 years) and tumor stage, grade, or tumor molecular phenotype among women with invasive disease. As in older women, tumor molecular phenotype does vary by BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation status, which has implications for prevention and treatment. Table 1. Subtype by age groupTotal (n=1136)≤30 yrs (n=144)31-35 yrs (n=314)36-40 yrs (n=678)p=0.42Luminal A-like377 (33%)48 (33%)99 (32%)230 (34%)Luminal B-like477 (42%)59 (41%)137 (44%)281 (41%)• ER/PR+, HER2-, grade 3245 (22%)27 (19%)68 (22%)150 (22%)• ER/PR+, HER2+232 (20%)32 (22%)69 (22%)131 (19%)HER2E95 (8%)13 (9%)34 (11%)48 (7%)Triple Negative187 (16%)24 (17%)44 (14%)119 (18%) Table 2. Subtype by BRCA statusTotal(n=1136)BRCA1+(n=82)BRCA2+(n=45)No mutation/not tested(n=1009)p<0.0001Luminal A-like377 (33%)2 (2%)13 (29%)362 (36%)Luminal B-like477 (42%)25 (30%)25 (56%)427 (42%)• ER/PR+, HER2-, grade 3245 (22%)21 (26%)18 (40%)206 (20%)• ER/PR+, HER2+232 (20%)4 (5%)7 (16%)221 (22%)HER2E95 (8%)4 (5%)1 (2%)90 (9%)Triple Negative187 (16%)51 (62%)6 (13%)130 (13%) Citation Format: Yaileen D Guzman-Arocho, Shoshana M. Rosenberg, Philip Poorvu, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Greg Kirkner, Craig Snow, Rulla M. Tamimi, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Lidia Schapira, Virginia F. Borges, Steven E. Come, Elena F. Brachtel, Ellen Warner, Ann H. Partridge, Laura C. Collins. Clinicopathological features and BRCA 1/2 status in a large prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-07-02.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".