Development and Validation of a Genomic Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation in Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) is used for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery. However, some women with low risk of recurrence may safely be spared RT. This study aimed to identify these women using a molecular-based approach. METHODS We analyzed two randomized trials of women with node-negative invasive breast cancer to ± RT following breast-conserving surgery: SweBCG91-RT (stage I-II, no adjuvant systemic therapy) and Princess Margaret (age 50 years or older, T1-T2, adjuvant tamoxifen). Transcriptome-wide profiling was performed (Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray). Patients with estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative tumors and with gene expression data were included. The SweBCG91-RT cohort was divided into training (N = 243) and validation (N = 354) cohorts. A 16-gene signature named Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) was trained to predict locoregional recurrence (LRR) using elastic net regression. POLAR was then validated in the SweBCG91-RT validation cohort and the Princess Margaret cohort (N = 132). RESULTS Patients categorized as POLAR low-risk without RT had a 10-year LRR of 6% (95% CI, 2 to 16) and 7% (0 to 27) in SweBCG91-RT and Princess Margaret cohorts, respectively. There was no significant benefit from RT in POLAR low-risk patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1 [0.39 to 3.4], P = .81, and HR, 1.5 [0.14 to 16], P = .74, respectively). Patients categorized as POLAR high-risk had a significant decreased risk of LRR with RT (HR, 0.43 [0.24 to 0.78], P = .0055, and HR, 0.25 [0.07 to 0.92], P = .038, respectively). An exploratory analysis testing for interaction between RT and POLAR in the combined validation cohort was performed ( P = .066). CONCLUSION The novel POLAR genomic signature on the basis of LRR biology may identify patients with a low risk of LRR despite not receiving RT, and thus may be candidates for RT omission.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".