MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessment of risk of overall and late distant recurrence by Breast Cancer Index in postmenopausal women with early-stage, HR+ breast cancer in the TEAM trial.

2023· article· en· W4379285481 on OpenAlexaff
John M.S. Bartlett, Keying Xu, Jenna Wong, Gregory R. Pond, Yi Zhang, Melanie Spears, Ranelle Salunga, Elizabeth Mallon, Karen J. Taylor, Annette Hasenburg, Christos Markopoulos, Luc Dirix, Caroline Seynaeve, Cornelis J.�H. van de Velde, Daniel Rea, Catherine A. Schnabel, Kai Treuner, Jane Bayani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchMcMaster University
FundersHologic
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerHazard ratioInternal medicineTamoxifenProportional hazards modelOncologyStage (stratigraphy)Confidence intervalExemestaneCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

509 Background: Individual risk assessment of distant recurrence (DR) is particularly relevant for early-stage HR+ breast cancer patients, as they face a prolonged risk of recurrence even after adjuvant endocrine therapy. Previously, we have shown that the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) and BCIN+ risk groups are significantly prognostic for risk of overall (0-10y) and late (5-10y) distant recurrence in N0 and N1 breast cancer patients, respectively, enrolled in the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial. Here, the prognostic performance of BCI and BCIN+ as a continuous risk score for overall and late distant recurrence was evaluated in the TEAM trial. Methods: BCI testing was performed blinded to clinical outcome with BCI/BCIN+ risk scores calculated as previously described. Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, tumor size, grade and treatments were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for BCI/ BCIN+ continuous risk scores. The 10y risk of overall and late DR were estimated as a function of risk scores from the Cox models using Breslow estimates. Results: Continuous risk curves for overall and late DR were obtained in patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy and those who remained DR-free at 5 years regardless of chemotherapy, respectively, to reflect the two key time points for breast cancer treatment decision-making. InN0 patients not treated with chemotherapy (N = 1197), BCI was significantly prognostic for overall DR with a HR of 1.39 (95% CI 1.25-1.54; p < 0.001), while BCIN+ was significantly prognostic in N1 patients who did not receive chemotherapy (N = 1319) with a HR of 4.29 (95% CI 2.93-6.28; p < 0.001). Among patients who remained DR-free at 5 years, in the N0 subset (N = 1285), BCI was significantly prognostic for late DR with a HR of 1.23 (95% CI 1.07-1.42; p < 0.001), while BCIN+ remained to be significantly prognostic in the N1 subset (N = 1762) with a HR of 2.78 (95% CI 1.75-4.43; p < 0.001). Similar results were observed in the HER2- subset for both overall and late DR. Continuous risk curves for BCI and BCIN+ for overall and late DR showed an increasing risk of DR with higher BCI/BCIN+ scores. Conclusions: Results from this largest BCI study to date further support the use of BCI to provide individualized risk estimates for both overall and late DR in women with HR+ breast cancer to aid in personalized decision-making for adjuvant therapy. [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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→