MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Utility of the 70-gene MammaPrint assay for prediction of benefit from extended letrozole therapy (ELT) in the NRG Oncology/NSABP B-42 trial.

2021· article· en· W3169372071 on OpenAlexaff
Priya Rastogi, Hanna Bandos, Peter C. Lucas, Laura van ‘t Veer, Jia-Perng Jennifer Wei, Charles E. Geyer, Louis Fehrenbacher, Mark L. Graham, Stephen Chia, Adam Brufsky, Janice M. Walshe, Gamini S. Soori, Shaker R. Dakhil, Soonmyung Paik, Sandra M. Swain, Andrea Menicucci, Shiyu Wang, M. William Audeh, Norman Wolmark, Eleftherios P. Mamounas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHazard ratioBreast cancerOncologyClinical endpointLetrozoleProportional hazards modelLog-rank testConfidence intervalCancerGynecologyRandomized controlled trialTamoxifen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

502 Background: The 70-gene MammaPrint (MP) assay predicts risk of distant recurrence (DR) in hormone-receptor positive early-stage breast cancer and classifies cancers as Low Risk or High Risk. NSABP B-42 evaluated ELT in patients (pts) who had completed 5 yrs of adjuvant endocrine therapy (tx). The primary objective was to determine the utility of MP to identify pts enrolled in NSABP B-42 who are likely to benefit from ELT. Methods: A total of 1,866 pts from B-42 had available MP results. Primary endpoint is DR. Secondary endpoints are disease-free survival (DFS) and breast cancer-free interval (BCFI). For the primary analysis, pts were classified as High Risk (MP-H) (MP score ≤0.000) or Low Risk (MP-L) (MP score > 0.000). Exploratory analyses were performed for MP-L subcategories: MP Ultralow Risk (MP-UL) (MP score > 0.355) and MP-L but not MP-UL (MP-LNUL) (MP score > 0.000, ≤0.355). Likelihood ratio test based on stratified Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was used for treatment by risk group interaction. Stratified log-rank test was used to compare treatment groups. Hazard ratios and 95% CI were computed based on the stratified Cox PH model. Results: Among 1,866 pts, 706 (38%) were MP-H and 1,160 (62%) were MP-L. Of the MP-L, 252 (22%) were MP-UL. There were no significant differences in the distribution of patient and tumor characteristics between the MP group and the rest of the B-42 cohort, except for HER2 status. ELT effect was more pronounced in the MP cohort than in the overall B-42 population. For DR, there was statistically significant ELT benefit in MP-L (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.74, p = 0.002), but not MP-H (HR = 0.65, 0.34-1.24, p = 0.19) (interaction p = 0.38). For DFS, there was statistically significant ELT benefit in MP-L, but not MP-H (interaction p = 0.015). Similar findings were observed for BCFI (interaction p = 0.006). Within subcategories of MP-L, there was statistically significant ELT benefit in MP-LNUL, but not in MP-UL for all three endpoints, however the power in MP-UL was limited due to low number of pts (Table). Clinical trial information: 00382070. Conclusions: Statistically significant ELT benefit was observed for MP-L, but not MP-H. The treatment by risk group interaction was not statistically significant for DR, but it was for DFS and BCFI. The benefit appears to be stronger in MP-LNUL than in MP-UL. NCT: 00382070. Support: U10CA180868, -180822, U24CA196067; Novartis; Agendia.[Table: see text]

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)0.003
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 score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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