MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the 21-gene breast recurrence score in young women with estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer.

2020· article· en· W3029489750 on OpenAlexaff
Tal Sella, Shari Gelber, Philip D. Poorvu, Hee Jeong Kim, Yaileen D Guzman Arocho, Laura C. Collins, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Rulla M. Tamimi, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Lidia Schapira, Virginia F. Borges, Steven E. Come, Ellen Warner, Craig Snow, Debbie Jakubowski, Christy Russell, Eric P. Winer, Shoshana M. Rosenberg, Ann H. Partridge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersConquer Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineOncologyEstrogen receptorAnthracyclineChemotherapyTaxaneProgesterone receptorCancerProspective cohort studyNeoadjuvant therapyGynecologyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

514 Background: The 21- gene Breast Recurrence Score predicts benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in estrogen receptor positive (ER+), HER-2 negative (-) breast cancer (BC). We aimed to examine whether the 21-gene assay predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: We identified patients with stage I-III ER+/HER2− BC treated with NAC from the Young Women's Breast Cancer Study, a prospective cohort of women diagnosed with BC at age ≤ 40 years. The 21-gene assay was performed on tumor specimens removed prior to NAC either as part of clinical care or retrospectively for research. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as no residual invasive tumor (ypT0/is ypN0). The relationship between Recurrence Score result (RS) and pCR was evaluated using logistic regression modeling. Results: 76 women in the cohort had undergone NAC for ER+, HER2- BC and were eligible for this analysis: 5 had undergone clinical 21-gene assay testing, 71 had banked specimens retrospectively tested. Median age at diagnosis was 36.7 (24.3-40). Most tumors were of ductal histology (78%), high grade (51%), progesterone receptor (PgR) positive (86%), ≥T2 (88%), clinically node positive (74%), and anthracycline and taxane containing protocols were administered in 86% of cases. RS ranged between 5-75 with 50% > 25 and only 4 < 11. Mean RS was significantly higher among tumors achieving pCR vs. non-pCR response (51.9 vs. 26.6, pwilcoxon= 0.0005). pCR rate in patients with RS > 25 was 21% (8/38) vs. 5% in patients with RS < 25 (2/38), with both pCRs in the <25 group in patients with RS 21-25. In univariable analysis, PgR negativity (odds ratio (OR) 5.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-24.89, p = 0.02), high grade (OR 9.03, 95%CI 1.07-76.32, p = 0.04) and higher RS as a continuous variable (OR 1.08, 95%CI 1.04-1.13, p = 0.0003) were associated with a greater likelihood of pCR. In multivariable analysis only RS remained significantly associated with pCR (OR: 1.07, 95%CI 1.01-1.12, p = 0.01): a 7% increase in the odds of pCR for every 1-point increase in RS. Conclusions: In young women with ER+, HER2- BC who received NAC, higher pretreatment RS was associated with an increased likelihood of pCR. Genomic expression profiling assays may have a role in decision-making in young women in need of neoadjuvant therapy. For women with low likelihood of benefiting from NAC, alternative approaches are clearly warranted. Given the demonstrated efficacy of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in post-menopausal women, further evaluation in young women should be pursued.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207