Data from Natural History and Characteristics of <i>ERBB2</i>-mutated Hormone Receptor–positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Multi-institutional Retrospective Case–control Study from AACR Project GENIE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div>AbstractPurpose:<p>We wanted to determine the prognosis and the phenotypic characteristics of hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer tumors harboring an <i>ERBB2</i> mutation in the absence of a HER2 amplification.</p>Experimental Design:<p>We retrospectively collected information from the American Association of Cancer Research-Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange registry database from patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, <i>ERBB2</i>-mutated advanced breast cancer. Phenotypic and co-mutational features, as well as response to treatment and outcome were compared with matched control cases <i>ERBB2</i> wild type.</p>Results:<p>A total of 45 <i>ERBB2</i>-mutant cases were identified for 90 matched controls. The presence of an <i>ERBB2</i> mutation was not associated with worse outcome determined by overall survival (OS) from first metastatic relapse. No significant differences were observed in phenotypic characteristics apart from higher lobular infiltrating subtype in the <i>ERBB2</i>-mutated group. <i>ERBB2</i> mutation did not seem to have an impact in response to treatment or time-to-progression (TTP) to endocrine therapy compared with <i>ERBB2</i> wild type. In the co-mutational analyses, <i>CDH1</i> mutation was more frequent in the <i>ERBB2-</i>mutated group (FDR < 1). Although not significant, fewer co-occurring <i>ESR1</i> mutations and more <i>KRAS</i> mutations were identified in the <i>ERBB2</i>-mutated group.</p>Conclusions:<p><i>ERBB2</i>-activating mutation was not associated with a worse OS from time of first metastatic relapse, or differences in TTP on treatment as compared with a series of matched controls. Although not significant, differences in coexisting mutations (<i>CDH1</i>, <i>ESR1</i>, and <i>KRAS</i>) were noted between the <i>ERBB2</i>-mutated and the control group.</p></div>
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".