Developing a clinical-pathologic model to predict genomic risk of recurrence in patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative, node negative breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-negative, node negative (NN) breast cancer may be offered a gene expression profiling (GEP) test to determine recurrence risk and benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. We developed a clinical-pathologic (CP) model to predict genomic recurrence risk and examined its performance characteristics. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with HR-positive, HER2-negative, NN breast cancer with a tumour size < 30 mm and who underwent a GEP test [OncotypeDX or Prosigna] in Alberta from October 2017 through March 2019 were identified. Patients were classified as low or high genomic risk. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the associations of CP factors with genomic risk. A CP model was developed using coefficients of regression and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients were eligible (135 were tested using OncotypeDX and 231 with Prosigna). Of these, 64 (17.5%) patients were classified as high genomic risk. On multivariable logistic regression, tumour size > 20 mm (odds ratio [OR], 3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.84-6.98; P<0.001), low expression of progesterone receptor (OR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.76-6.82; P<0.001), and histological grade III (OR, 7.24; 95% CI, 3.82-13.70; P<0.001) predicted high genomic risk. A CP model using these variables was developed to provide a score of 0-4. A CP cut-point of 0, identified 56% of genomic low risk patients with a specificity of 98.4%. CONCLUSIONS: A CP model could be used to narrow the population of breast cancer patients undergoing GEP testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".