MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retrospective study to estimate the prevalence of HER2-low breast cancer (BC) and describe its clinicopathological characteristics.

2022· article· en· W4281719541 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppe Viale, Naoki Niikura, Eriko Tokunaga, Olga Aleynikova, Naoki Hayashi, Joohyuk Sohn, Ciara O’Brien, Gavin C. Higgins, Della Varghese, Gareth D. James, Akira Moh, Nana Scotto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcordanceInternal medicineBreast cancerOncologyImmunohistochemistryRetrospective cohort studyCancerGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1087 Background: Approximately 50% of BCs traditionally categorized as HER2 negative (HER2-neg) express low levels of HER2 (IHC 1+ or IHC 2+/ISH-; Miglietta, NPJ Breast Cancer 2021). HER2-targeted therapies for HER2-low metastatic BC (mBC) are under investigation (eg, T-DXd in the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast04 study; NCT03734029), but HER2 assays currently used to select patients (pts) for approved anti-HER2 therapies are optimized for high HER2 expression and are not validated for HER2-low detection. A recent study found relatively poor agreement (<70% interrater agreement) in evaluation of IHC scores of 0 and 1+ using current HER2 assays (Fernandez, JAMA Oncol 2022). Our objectives were to assess the prevalence of HER2-low among HER2-neg based on rescored HER2 IHC slides after training on low-end expression scoring and to describe pt characteristics of HER2-low vs HER2 IHC 0 mBC. Preliminary results are reported for 233 of 1000 planned pts. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study (NCT04807595) included pts with confirmed HER2-neg unresectable/mBC diagnosed between 2015 and 2017. Local laboratories, blinded to historical HER2 scores, rescored HER2 IHC-stained slides. HER2 was assessed using Ventana 4B5 and other assays. BCs were categorized as HER2-low or HER2 IHC 0. The prevalence of HER2-low BC among pts originally scored as HER2-neg was measured. Demographics (eg, age, country, race) and clinicopathological characteristics were examined via medical charts/electronic health records. Concordance between historical HER2 scores and rescores was assessed. Results: HER2 rescores were obtained for 233 pts (mean age, 54 y). HER2-low prevalence was 63.2% overall and numerically greater in hormone receptor (HR)–positive vs HR-negative subgroups (66.1% vs 54.8%; Table). No notable differences in prevalence were seen among different HER2 assays or in demographic/baseline disease characteristics between the HER2-low and HER2 IHC 0 groups. Concordance rate between historical and rescored slides for HER2-status classification was 82.3%. The presentation will include an expanded data set (≈400 pts) with additional results. Conclusions: Data on HER2-low prevalence in BC is limited. Preliminary data from this study of mBC samples suggest a somewhat higher prevalence estimate (≈63%) than a previous study of primary BC samples (≈50%). Concordance was 82%; ongoing analyses with updated data will clarify the concordance between rescored and historical HER2 slides. These data can support development of best practices for identifying pts with HER2-low expression who may benefit from HER2-targeted therapies. Clinical trial information: NCT04807595. [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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.402 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207