MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PS18-25: Concordance of immunohistochemical assays between peri-operative and post-operative breast tumor specimens: A prospective observational study of 18 cases

2021· article· en· W3131777052 on OpenAlexaff
Martin C. Chang, Marguerite Ennis, Jaime Escallón, Karina Bukhanov, Ryan J.O. Dowling, Vuk Stambolic, Pamela J. Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerBiopsyImmunohistochemistryConcordanceCore biopsyBiomarkerCancerProspective cohort studyHistopathologyH&E stainPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Rationale: Biomarker evaluation on breast tumor tissue is an important component of clinical research. There is a concern that tissues collected at different times (pre- vs intra-op) and with different techniques (core biopsy vs. surgical excision) produce different results that may confound comparisons of patient samples. Our objective is to address the difference between tumor tissue from the same patient collected pre- vs intra-op and by core biopsy (Core Bx) vs surgical excision, with an emphasis on ER/PgR/HER2/Ki-67 and biomarkers related to insulin metabolism. Design: Following a protocol approved by the IRB, patients with Core Bx proven invasive breast cancer (BC) >1.5 cm in size by imaging underwent a peri-operative Core Bx followed by surgical excision. No neoadjuvant therapy was administered. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor sections of the diagnostic and peri-operative Core Bx and surgical excision were immunohistochemically (IHC) stained for ER, PgR, HER2, Ki-67, insulin receptor (IR), phospho-AKT (pAKT), and phospho-AMPK (pAMPK) using standardized protocols on the same platforms. A pathologist (MCC) scored all sections in blinded order to yield H-Scores (which combine percentage of stain-positive cells and staining intensity). The level of agreement for each assay between specimens was assessed by using pairwise models based on normal theory. Results: 18 women (mean age = 66.8 years, 16/18 postmenopausal) provided all specimens. Mean (± SD) invasive tumor size was 2.7 (± 1.2) cm. 1 BC was Nottingham Grade 1 (6%), 9 Grade 2 (50%), and 8 Grade 3 (44%). An in situ component was present in 4/18 (22%) cases (all non-extensive). Lymphovascular invasion was present in 6/18 (33%) cases. 10/18 were node-negative (N0, 56%), 2/18 had isolated tumor cells (pN0[i+], 22%), 5/18 had 1 to 3 nodes (pN1, 28%), 1/18 had >9 nodes involved (pN3, 6%).There was high concordance between diagnostic Core Bx, peri-op Core Bx, and excisions for the standard prognostic markers ER, PgR, and HER2. ER was concordant in all samples including 16/18 (89%) ER-positive and 2/19 (11%) ER-negative BCs. PgR was concordant in 16/18 (89%) of cases. In the 2 discordant cases, PgR was negative in 2 of 3 tissue samples with low expression in the 3rd sample (1 diagnostic Core Bx and 1 excision). HER2 was concordant in all samples in 16/18 (89%) HER2-negative cases and in 2/18 (11%) HER2-positive cases including 1/18 cases (6%) positive by IHC, and 1/18 cases (6%) positive by ISH. Table 1 summarizes the agreement between samples for Ki-67, IR, pAKT, and pAMPK. Ki-67 scores were statistically similar between diagnostic and peri-op Core Bx and excision samples. The IR, pAKT, and pAMPK H-Scores were statistically similar between diagnostic and peri-op Core Bx, but significantly different between Core Bxs versus excisional specimens. There was a systematic tendency towards lower IHC H-Scores in the excisional specimen for IR, pAKT, and pAMPK. Conclusion: Tissue from surgical excisions are susceptible to reduced IHC staining for metabolic markers such as IR, and phosphorylated kinases, when compared to core biopsies. When evaluating non-standard biomarkers for research, core biopsies should be used when possible. Funding: This study was funded by the Hold'Em For Life Charity and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation Table 1: Concordance Between IHC Scores for Ki-67, Insulin Receptor, pAKT, and pAMPKScore: Mean ± Standard DeviationPeri-Operative Core Bx versus Diagnostic Core BxExcision versus Diagnostic Core BxDiagnostic Core BxPeri-Operative Core BxExcisionDifferenceP-valueDifferenceP-valueKi-67 (% Positive)33.5 ± 28.235.9 ± 31.034.2 ± 29.1Mean ± SD: 2.4 ± 5.60.09Mean ± SD: 0.6 ± 6.30.68Range: -7.7 to 12.3Range: -11.5 to 12.2Insulin Receptor (H-Score**)136 ± 102124 ± 9986 ± 78Mean ± SD: -13 ± 530.32Mean ± SD: -51 ± 540.001*Range: -215 to 40Range: -150 to 5Phospho-AKT (H-Score**)102 ± 70100 ± 8641 ± 41Mean ± SD: -1 ± 750.95Mean ± SD: -61 ± 520.0001*Range: -170 to 170Range: -144 to 0Phospho-AMPK (H-Score**)201 ± 79185 ± 78157 ± 86Mean ± SD: -15 ± 760.41Mean ± SD: -44 ± 690.016*Range: -225 to 120Range: -215 to 70* Statistically significant difference in pairwise values based on t-test** H-Score is the percentage of stain-positive cells multiplied by the average intensity score (0 = absent, 1 = faint, 2 = moderate, 3 = strong) Citation Format: Martin C. Chang, Marguerite Ennis, Jaime Escallon, Karina Bukhanov, Ryan JO Dowling, Vuk Stambolic, Pamela J Goodwin. Concordance of immunohistochemical assays between peri-operative and post-operative breast tumor specimens: A prospective observational study of 18 cases [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS18-25.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207