MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P5-12-05: Clinical outcomes in early breast cancer patients on adjuvant tamoxifen: Impact of CYP2D6 genotype and observed endoxifen concentrations

2020· article· en· W3013990084 on OpenAlexaff
Veera Durga Sravanthi Panuganty, Denise Keller, Wendy A. Teft, John Lenehan, Kylea Potvin, Jawaid Younus, T. Vandenberg, D M Logan, Karin Hahn, Muriel Brackstone, Phillip Blanchette, Francisco Perera, Yun‐Hee Choi, Richard Brian Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTamoxifenMedicineBreast cancerOncologyInternal medicineCYP2D6Adjuvant therapyHormonal therapyCancerPharmacogenomicsGenotypePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Tamoxifen is widely used in patients with hormone sensitive breast cancer in the adjuvant setting to decrease risk of recurrence and metastasis. 5-10 years of tamoxifen has demonstrated a near 50% reduction in recurrence risk. Despite marked interpatient variation in the metabolism of tamoxifen to its active metabolite endoxifen, all patients are prescribed 20 mg daily dose of tamoxifen. Current evidence suggests that patients are at risk for suboptimal benefit if measured endoxifen concentration is below 5.9 ng/ml (~15nM). However, there have been conflicting data on the clinical utility of CYP2D6 genotype testing, and measuring endoxifen plasma concentration as a predictor of breast cancer recurrence. The goal of this prospective study was to determine the impact of endoxifen levels and CYP2D6 genetic variations to clinical outcome among patients with early breast cancer. Methods: Since 2010, as part of Personalized Medicine Program in Oncology, our team has been prospectively enrolling patients on tamoxifen therapy. To date 950 patients have been enrolled and preliminary analysis has been completed in 429. After initial CYP2D6 genotype testing, plasma concentration of tamoxifen and its metabolites were quantified using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry during each clinic visit. Baseline characteristic are outlined in table 1. Primary outcome assessed was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) defined as time since start of tamoxifen therapy till an event of interest such as loco-regional recurrence, distant metastasis, new contralateral primary breast cancer, death due to breast cancer and other causes. Patients were censored at their last encounter at our institution (London Health Sciences Centre). Results: IDFS data for 426 patients were obtained. Outcome was stratified by CYP2D6 phenotypes (ultra-rapid, extensive, intermediate and poor metabolizers) and endoxifen levels (>5.9ng/ml or <5.9ng/ml). CYP2D6 phenotype did not demonstrate a significant association for IDFS. However, Kaplan Meier analysis stratified for endoxifen concentration >vs< 5.9 ng/ml showed a clear trend towards lower IDFS (hazard ratio = 2.4, (95%CI,1.26-4.77) P=0.0002) among those with endoxifen < 5.9 ng/ml. We note this preliminary data analysis was unadjusted and will undergo further in-depth statistical analysis. Conclusion: Preliminary finding suggests endoxifen concentration, but not CYP2D6 phenotype, may be a predictor of risk for suboptimal benefit during tamoxifen therapy. Detailed statistical analysis is planned for the full cohort, including adjustment for covariates including tumor stage, menopausal status, drug interactions, and use of aromatase inhibitors. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its type to prospectively collect multiple plasma samples for tamoxifen and endoxifen level in real-world patients during tamoxifen therapy, with sufficient sample size and follow-up period for primary clinical outcome. Table 1: Baseline Characteristics of PatientsCharacteristicsCYP2D6-Phenotypes, n=429 (%)Endoxifen concentration, n=429 (%)UM/EMIMPM>5.9ng/ml(~15nm)<5.9ng/ml(~15nm)n= 256n= 153n= 20n=376n= 53Age at DiagnosisMean5049485048Range24-8928-7928-8324-8427-88SexMale3 (1)7(5)08(2)2(4)Female253 (99)146(95)20(100)368(98)51(96)Tumor statusT1121(47)70(46)9(45)177(47)23(43)T297(38)58(38)10(50)142(38)23(43)T318(7)16(10)1(5)30(8)5(9)T412(5)4(3)016(4)0unknown8(3)5(3)011(3)2(4)Nodal statusN0124(97)71(46)10(50)179(48)26(49)N195 (37)53(35)9(45)144(38)13(24)N217(7)18(12)1(5)28(7)8(15)N313(5)5(3)015(4)3(6)Unknown7(3)6(4)010(3)3(6)HistologyIDC205(80)128(84)16(80)303(81)48(91)ILC28(11)14(9)3(15)41(11)3(6)other5(2)2(1)06(2)0unknown18(7)9(6)1(5)26(7)2(4)Grade154(21)24(16)3(15)78(21)3(6)2139(54)84(55)13(65)202(54)34(64)354(21)39(25)4(20)84(3)13(24)unknown9(4)6(4)012(3)3(6)ER+251(98)151(99)20(100)369(98)53(100)-5(2)2(1)07(2)0unknown00000PR+232(90)142(93)20(100)343(91)51(96)-24(9)11(7)033(9)2(4)unknown00000Her2+55(21)25(16)5(25)75(20)10(19)-200(78)127(84)15(75)299(80)43(81)unknown1102(1)0Breast SurgeryMastectomy149(58)84(55)11(55)214(57)30(57)Lumpectomy105(41)68(44)9(45)159(42)23(43)Unknown2(1)103(1)0Axillary SurgerySLNB137(54)80(52)12(60)204(54)25(47)ALND113(44)70(46)8(40)165(44)26(49)Unknown6(2)3(2)07(2)2(4)Chemotherapy190(74)108(71)16(80)277(74)37(70)Radiation Therapy213(83)126(82)17(85)310(82)46(87)Herceptin57(22)23(15)6(30)77(16)9(17) Citation Format: Veera Durga Sravanthi Panuganty, Denise Keller, Wendy A Teft, John Gordon Lenehan, Kylea Raijann Potvin, Jawaid Younus, Theodorus Anthony Vandenberg, Diane Mary Logan, Karin Hahn, Muriel Brackstone, Phillip Stanley Blanchette, Francisco Perera, Yun-Hee Choi, Richard Brian Kim. Clinical outcomes in early breast cancer patients on adjuvant tamoxifen: Impact of CYP2D6 genotype and observed endoxifen concentrations [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 P5-12-05.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicEstrogen and related hormone effects→French-language works237,207→