Therapeutic Targeting of Minimal Residual Disease to Prevent Late Recurrence in Hormone-Receptor Positive Breast Cancer: Challenges and New Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the majority of breast cancers are diagnosed at a curable stage, approximately 20% of women will experience recurrence at a distant site during their lifetime. These metastatic recurrences are incurable with current therapeutic approaches. Over the past decade, the biologic mechanisms underlying these recurrences have been elucidated, establishing the existence of minimal residual disease in the form of circulating micrometastases and dormant disease, primarily in the bone marrow. Numerous technologies are now available to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) after breast cancer treatment, but it is yet unknown how to best target and eradicate these cells, and whether clearance of detectable disease prior to the formation of overt metastases can prevent ultimate progression and death. Clinical trials to test this hypothesis are challenging due to the rare nature of MRD in the blood and bone marrow, resulting in the need to screen a large number of survivors to identify those for study. Use of prognostic molecular tools may be able to direct screening to those patients most likely to harbor MRD, but the relationship between these predictors and MRD detection is as yet undefined. Further challenges include the lack of a definitive assay for MRD with established clinical utility, difficulty in selecting potential interventions due to limitations in understanding the biology of MRD, and the emotional impact of detecting MRD in patients who have completed definitive treatment and have no evidence of overt metastatic disease. This review provides a roadmap for tackling these challenges in the design and implementation of interventional clinical trials aimed at eliminating MRD and ultimately preventing metastatic disease to improve survival from this disease, with a specific focus on late recurrences in ER+ breast cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".