Abstract PD17-06: Immunohistochemical markers and determinants of clinical response in the Penelope-B trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The Penelope-B trial did not show improvement in invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with high-risk early breast cancer (BC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Biomarkers may be able to identify subgroups of patients deriving benefit from Palbociclib and guide future studies. Estrogen-receptor (ER), progesterone-receptor (PgR) and Ki-67 might be helpful in identifying patients benefiting from palbociclib. Concordantly, tumors with elevated expression of Cyclin D1 and phosphorylated retinoblastoma protein (phospho-RB) may harbor more dependency on CDK4/6 and thus higher sensitivity to palbociclib. Methods: The percentage of positive ER and PgR cells and Ki-67 assessed in surgical specimens after NACT were combined to obtain the immunohistochemical score 3 (IHC3, Cuzick et al JCO 2011, low vs high based on the median IHC3 value). Cyclin D1 and phospho-RB Ser 807/811 immunoreactive (phospho-RB) scores were analyzed in residual tumors after NACT (range 0-12 each). Proportional hazard regression model was used to assess the predictive and prognostic value of IHC3 and treatment on iDFS. Subgroup analysis was performed according to BC intrinsic subtypes (luminal-A/normal-like, luminal-B/HER2-enriched/basal) and HER2-status (HER2 0, HER2 low). Cox/Fine-Gray regression was used to define the predictive and prognostic value of CyclinD1 (≤1, >1), phospho-RB (≤2, >2) as dichotomized and continuous variables on iDFS, distant DFS (DDFS), locoregional invasive recurrence-free interval (LRRFI) and overall survival (OS). Multivariate analyses (MVA) were adjusted for age (≤50 vs >50), Ki-67 (≤15 vs >15), region (non-Asian vs Asian), ypN (ypN0-1 vs ypN2-3), risk status (CPS-EG=2 ypN+ vs ≥3), cT (cT1-2 vs cT3-4), ypT (ypT0-2 vs ypT3-4), and grade (G1-2 vs G3). The MVA for IHC3 includes all the covariates above except Ki-67. p< 0.05 was defined as statistically significant. Results: Data for ER, PgR, Ki-67, HER2, Cyclin D1 and phospho-RB were available for 1250 patients. Overall, 98.9% of the patients had ER+ tumors, 75.0% PgR+, 52.2% had HER2 low, 25.5% Ki-67>15, 50% had IHC3 score higher than median, 93.9% had Cyclin D1 >1, 57.8% had phospho-RB >2. Patients with IHC3 score high had a worse iDFS compared to patients with IHC3 score low (MVA HR 2.28 95%CI (1.78-2.91), p< 0.0001). Patients with luminal-A/normal-like tumors and IHC3 low had an improved iDFS with the addition of palbociclib to ET (MVA HR 0.35 95%CI (0.14-0.90), test for interaction p=0.01). No difference was observed according to HER2 status. Cyclin D1>1 has no predictive value but is prognostic for better iDFS (MVA HR 0.62 95%CI (0.41-0.94), p=0.023), LRRFI (MVA HR 0.30 95%CI (0.15-0.63), p=0.001) and OS (MVA HR 0.50 95%CI (0.28-0.89), p=0.019). Similar results were obtained when Cyclin D1 was analysed as a continuous variable. Phospho-RB had neither predictive nor prognostic value. Phospho-RB highly correlates with Ki-67 (p< 0.001, Spearman correlation 0.248). Conclusions: Patients with high Cyclin D1 expression had a favorable prognosis independent of treatment arm, but patients with luminal-A/normal-like tumors and IHC3 low after NACT had an improved outcome when receiving palbociclib in addition to adjuvant ET. Theses exploratory studies suggest specific signatures/phenotypes could predict benefit from Palbociclib in high-risk early breast cancer. Citation Format: Erik S. Knudsen, Sivaramakrishna Rachakonda, Frederik Marmé, Miguel Martín, Michael Untch, Hervé R. Bonnefoi, Wolfgang D. Schmitt, Sung-Bae Kim, Harry D. Bear, Agnieszka Witkiewicz, Seock-Ah Im, Angela DeMichele, Laura Van’t Veer, Nicole McCarthy, Bruno V. Sinn, Karen Gelmon, José Ángel García-Sáenz, Catherine M. Kelly, Toralf Reimer, Nicholas Turner, Federico Rojo, Martin Filipits, Peter A. Fasching, Christian Schem, Lesley-Ann Martin, Yuan Liu, Masakazu Toi, Hope Rugo, Michael Gnant, Andreas Makris, Jenny Furlanetto, Karsten Weber, Carsten Denkert, Sibylle Loibl. Immunohistochemical markers and determinants of clinical response in the Penelope-B trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD17-06.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".