MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047152751 · doi:10.1200/jco.20.00549

Molecular Classification of the PORTEC-3 Trial for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer: Impact on Prognosis and Benefit From Adjuvant Therapy

2020· article· en· W3047152751 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia León‐Castillo, Stephanie M. de Boer, Melanie Powell, Linda Mileshkin, Helen Mackay, Alexandra Léary, Hans W. Nijman, Naveena Singh, Pamela M. Pollock, Paul Bessette, Anthony Fyles, Christine Haie-Méder, Vincent T.H.B.M. Smit, Richard J. Edmondson, Hein Putter, Henry C Kitchener, Emma J. Crosbie, Marco de Bruyn, Remi A. Nout, Nanda Horeweg, Carien L. Creutzberg, Tjalling Bosse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversité de SherbrookeSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersManchester Biomedical Research CentreCancer Research UKInstitut Gustave-RoussyKWF KankerbestrijdingNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Cancer Research InstituteCancer Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerInternal medicineOncologyRadiation therapyAdjuvant therapyChemotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE The randomized Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Radiotherapy Alone in Women With High-Risk Endometrial Cancer (PORTEC-3) trial investigated the benefit of combined adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CTRT) versus radiotherapy alone (RT) for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (EC). Because The Cancer Genome Atlas defined an EC molecular classification with strong prognostic value, we investigated prognosis and impact of chemotherapy for each molecular subgroup using tissue samples from PORTEC-3 trial participants. METHODS Paraffin-embedded tissues of 423 consenting patients were collected. Immunohistochemistry for p53 and mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, and DNA sequencing for POLE exonuclease domain were done to classify tumors as p53 abnormal (p53abn), POLE-ultramutated ( POLEmut), MMR-deficient (MMRd), or no specific molecular profile (NSMP). The primary end point was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox model were used for analysis. RESULTS Molecular analysis was successful in 410 high-risk EC (97%), identifying the 4 subgroups: p53abn EC (n = 93; 23%), POLEmut (n = 51; 12%), MMRd (n = 137; 33%), and NSMP (n = 129; 32%). Five-year RFS was 48% for patients with p53abn EC, 98% for POLEmut EC, 72% for MMRd EC, and 74% for NSMP EC ( P < .001). The 5-year RFS with CTRT versus RT for p53abn EC was 59% versus 36% ( P = .019); 100% versus 97% for patients with POLEmut EC ( P = .637); 68% versus 76% ( P = .428) for MMRd EC; and 80% versus 68% ( P = .243) for NSMP EC. CONCLUSION Molecular classification has strong prognostic value in high-risk EC, with significantly improved RFS with adjuvant CTRT for p53abn tumors, regardless of histologic type. Patients with POLEmut EC had an excellent RFS in both trial arms. EC molecular classification should be incorporated in the risk stratification of these patients as well as in future trials to target specific subgroups of patients.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations837
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207