A Retrospective Single Center Study Investigating the Clinical Significance of Grade in Triple Negative Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
management is primarily chemotherapy and surgical resection of localized tumors [9,10], followed by radiotherapy.Despite advances in novel immunotherapies and the discovery of additional biomarkers serving as therapeutic targets, TNBC remains clinically challenging to treat [11,12].A distant recurrence rate of 33.9% has been found in TNBC patients compared to a 20.4% rate amongst patients with non-TNBC [7].WHO classifies TNBC tumors in histopathological grades from 1 to 3 [13].Many TNBC disease prognosis and outcome clinical research studies on focused on tumor stage or the extent of cancer spread whereby patients presenting with localized, early-stage cancers have better outcomes than those presenting at a later stage [14].Tumor size, molecular profiles, and nodal status have also been studied in relation to disease outcome, yet there remains limited information on the AbstractThe purpose of this study was to investigate the predictive value of histological grade in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).We retrospectively analyzed 305 TNBC patient charts from 2004-2017 at Windsor Regional Cancer Center with triple negative defined as estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR), and HER-2 negative.The significance of grade with respect to demographic and treatment variables as well as patient outcomes was determined.There were found to be 10, 45, and 250 patients with tumor grades 1, 2, 3, respectively.The overall survival rates were 90.12%, 64.4%, and 77.2%, for patients with grade 1, 2 and 3 tumors respectively (p=0.019).Overall relapse rates were 70%, 55.6%, and 75.6%, respectively for patients with tumor grades 1, 2, and 3 (p=0.04)Comparing between grade 2 and grade 3, we determined that patients with grade 2 tumors had a 5.5-fold increased risk of death (HR=5.513;95% CI 1.2-25.6)and shorter time to relapse (HR=1.9;95% CI 1.1-3.2) at five years from time of diagnosis.In this retrospective review, grade was shown to have positive predictive value in determining relapse.This finding has the potential to impact patients and their clinicians, and as well, suggests a unique focus on this patient group in future research is recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".