MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P6-16-01: Refined local recurrence risk estimates based on a multigene expression assay combined with clinicopathological features significantly impacts radiotherapy recommendation in patients with low/intermediate risk DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery

2020· article· en· W3013534107 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eileen Rakovitch, Anne Koch, L. Grimard, Hany Soliman, Christiaan Stevens, Francisco Perera, Iwa Kong, Senti Senthelal, Margaret Anthes, Ericka Wiebe, Jeffrey Cao, Mira Goldberg, Sally Smith, Luciana Spadafora, Sameer Parpia, Timothy J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityJuravinski Cancer CentreTrillium Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreUniversity of OttawaHealth Sciences CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of CalgaryThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineBreast cancerRadiation therapyOncologyRadiation oncologistCohortCancerGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Guidelines recommend that breast radiation (RT) can be omitted for patients with a low risk of local recurrence (LR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for DCIS. The inability to identify women at low risk of LR (<10%) at 10 years after BCS has hampered efforts to de-escalate therapy for DCIS. The Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score® (DS), a 12-gene expression assay, predicts LR risk after BCS. The revised DS report adds information from the DS with clinicopathological features (CPF) (age, tumor size, year) (BCRT 2018;169;358-690) to provide refined estimates of LR risk and can better identify patients with low 10-year LR risk (<10%) after BCS. We evaluated the impact of refined LR risk estimates on its ability to change radiation oncologists’ recommendations for RT in women with low/moderate risk DCIS treated with BCS. Methods: Prospective cohort study of women with low/moderate risk pure DCIS treated with BCS. Cases with age <45 yrs, margins <1mm, tumor >2.5cm, multifocality, or prior breast cancer were excluded. Baseline CPFs, the DS and risk of LR were collected. Pre-assay, the radiation oncologist provided an estimate of 10-year LR risk without RT and a preliminary recommendation for RT. Post-assay, final recommendations were recorded. The primary outcome was change in treatment recommendation by the radiation oncologist. Target sample size was 220 to provide data on 200 evaluable patients with adequate precision. Results: 217 patients were evaluable: mean age, 63 years and mean tumor size, 1.1 cm. Nuclear grade was low in 26 (12%), intermediate in 116 (53%), and high in 75 (35%) of patients. Mean DS = 32; 140 (64%) low (<39), 32 (15%) intermediate (39-54), 45 (21%) high risk DS (≥5). The assay lead to a change in treatment recommendation in 35.2% (76/216) (95% CI: 29.1-41.8) of cases. The proportion of cases recommended to receive RT decreased from 79% (N=171) pre-assay to 50% post-assay (p<.001). This was due to a significant increase in the proportion of cases (46%) with a predicted low risk of LR (<10%) post-assay and recommendations to omit RT for those with low LR risk. Pre-assay, physician estimates of 10-yr LR risks after BCS based on CPFs alone were <10% in 13 (6%) cases, 10-15% in 76 (35%) cases and >15% in 128 (59%) cases. Post-assay, estimated 10-yr LR risk after BCS was <10% in 101 (46%) patients (83% recommended no RT), 10-15% in 67 (31%) (RT recommended in 66%) and >15% in 49 (22%) (RT recommended in 98%). Conclusion: The use of the DCIS Score combined with CPFs identifies more women with an estimated low (<10%) 10-yr LR risk after BCS leading to a significant change in treatment recommendations with a decrease in recommendations for RT following BCS compared to CPFs alone. Table 1.Post-assay 10-yr LR risk<10%10-15%>15%(N=101)(N= 67)(N=49)Pre-assay estimated 10-yr LR risk• <10% (N=13)922• 10-15% (N=76)50188• >15% (N=128)424739RT recommended• Yes17 (17%)44 (66%)48 (98%)• No83 (83%)23 (34%)1 (2%) Citation Format: Eileen Rakovitch, Anne Koch, Laval Grimard, Hany Soliman, Christiaan Stevens, Francisco Perera, Iwa Kong, Senti Senthelal, Margaret Anthes, Ericka Wiebe, Jeffrey Cao, Mira Goldberg, Sally Smith, Luciana Spadafora, Sameer Parpia, Timothy Whelan. Refined local recurrence risk estimates based on a multigene expression assay combined with clinicopathological features significantly impacts radiotherapy recommendation in patients with low/intermediate risk DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery [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 P6-16-01.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→