MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P3-07-08: Comparison of MammaTyper® RT-qPCR based subtyping with simulated breast cancer prognostic signatures

2020· article· en· W3014082077 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Laible, Sebastian Aulmann, A. Etzrodt, Marcus Schmidt, Cheryl Crozier, Ralph Wirtz, Jane Bayani, Uğur Şahin, John M.S. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubtypingBreast cancerOncologyPairwise comparisonInternal medicineCancerMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Current prognostic signatures are based on measurements of numerous targets and require specialized equipment and complex calculations. While the overall prognostic capabilities of the tests may be comparable in ER+/HER2- breast cancer, side by side comparisons of different tests have shown that results differ on the individual patient level (Bartlett et al., JNCI, 2016). Here we determined risk scores and classifications in 160 tumors to the following commercial and academic prognostic tests using a custom gene panel for which the publically available algorithms were trained against the actual commercial test scores: Mammaprint®, Oncotype DX®, Prosigna® including PAM50 subtyping; and academic risk scores: IHC4-like, 95-gene score and the Genomic Grade Index. These trained risk classifiers were compared to the results of the MammaTyper® IVD-kit. Methods: RNA was extracted from FFPE tissue sections and analyzed on the Nanostring nCounter® using a probe set containing all targets and reference genes used in the original signatures (N=199). Nanostring measurements and calculations of simulated risk classifiers were carried out as described previously (Bayani et al., npj Breast Cancer, 2017) and retrained against actual commercial test scores (Bartlett et al., in prep.). MammaTyper® RT-qPCR of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR and MKI67 (normalized to CALM2) was carried out on a separate aliquot of the same RNA sample. St. Gallen surrogate subtypes were assigned based on binary mRNA expression according to pre-defined cutoffs. For calculating pairwise agreements between test categorizations, simulated test results with ternary classification were transformed to binary classifications (IHC4-like: low + int vs. high, Oncotype DX-trained: RS≤25 vs. RS>25, Prosigna-trained ROR-P: low vs. int + high). Comparison of MammaTyper® with simulated risk scores was done on the level of surrogate subtypes and on the level of continuous MKI67 and LRP score values. The MammaTyper® LRP score is a previously developed signature to predict RS ≤25 results with high specificity. Results: Marker positivity rate by RT-qPCR was 83% for ESR1, 72% for PGR, 9% for ERBB2 and 58% for MKI67 based on the pre-specified MammaTyper® cutoffs. The highest rate of low risk results was found for binary RS classification with 68.1% of RS ≤25 samples. MammaTyper® Luminal A-like result was found in 30.6% of samples a rate similar to ROR-P, Genomic Grade Index or MammaPrint-trained low risk results (35.0%, 38.1% and 38.8% respectively). The highest agreement between the simulated risk classifications was observed between binary OncotypeDX-trained RS and IHC4-like classifications with 93.1%. Prosigna-trained (ROR-P) and IHC4-like score had the lowest pairwise agreement with only 65.0% agreement. Oncotype DX-trained and the 95 gene score had the highest concordance to MammaTyper® Luminal A-like subtype with 100% and 96% of Luminal A-like samples classified as RS ≤25 and low risk also by these signatures, respectively. ROC analyses of MammaTyper®MKI67 against binary 95-gene score risk classifier resulted in an AUC of 0.949. The lowest AUC for MKI67 was achieved against simulated MammaPrint-trained classification (AUC=0.874). When applying the LRP score to ROC analysis, almost identical AUCs were achieved for IHC4-like and binary Oncotype DX-trained classifications with AUCs of 0.976 and 0.969 respectively. Conclusion: Low cost local RT-qPCR measurements by MammaTyper® show a high agreement with the scores generated by our Oncotype DX-trained scores. The academic and well validated 95-gene signature agrees well with MammaTyper®MKI67 single gene measurement. Therefore, the locally performed MammaTyper® test may serve as cost effective surrogate for complex prognostic signatures or at least enables a pre-screening for molecularly “obviously” low risk samples. Citation Format: Mark Laible, Sebastian Aulmann, Alfred Etzrodt, Marcus Schmidt, Cheryl Crozier, Ralph Wirtz, Jane Bayani, Ugur Sahin, John MS Bartlett. Comparison of MammaTyper® RT-qPCR based subtyping with simulated breast cancer prognostic signatures [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 P3-07-08.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 topicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→