MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

HER2-low breast cancer brain metastases: Incidence and treatment implications.

2023· article· en· W4379333310 on OpenAlexaff
Rania Chehade, Sharon Nofech‐Mozes, Anna Plotkin, Veronika Moravan, Katarzyna J. Jerzak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreStatistics CanadaSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOncologyTrastuzumabImmunohistochemistryInternal medicineCancerEstrogen receptorCohortIncidence (geometry)Triple-negative breast cancerDiseaseGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2035 Background: Brain metastases (BrM) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among women with breast cancer (BC). Central nervous system (CNS)-penetrating systemic therapies for patients with HER2-negative BrM are lacking; this is particularly problematic for patients with triple negative disease (TNBC) who have a high likelihood of developing BrM. Given CNS activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan, efficacy for patients with HER2-low BrM is of interest. Methods: A retrospective study of two cohorts of patients who underwent surgery for BC BrM at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre between 1999-2013 and 2008-2018 were identified. Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status were assessed based on 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines. HER2-zero was defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 0; HER2-low was defined as IHC 1+ or IHC 2+ with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) negative status. HER2-positive was defined as IHC 3+ or IHC 2+ with positive FISH. Clinicopathological features were recorded. We also assessed the prognostic association between extent of HER2 expression and i) brain-specific progression free survival (bsPFS), as well as ii) overall survival (OS). Results: Out of 137 patients with resected BrM, tissue for HER2 assessment was available in 74.5% (n=102) of cases. In this cohort, the median age at BrM diagnosis was 53.5 (range, 32-85). 18.6% (n=19) had leptomeningeal disease and 68.6% (n=70) had extracranial disease. 53% (n=54) of the BrM were HER2-positive; 29.4% (n=30) were HER2-low and 17.6% (n=18) had HER2-zero status. Among BrM that were triple negative based on ASCO/CAP guidelines, 14 out of 22 cases (63.6%) were re-classified as being HER2-low. 15/25 (60%) BrM that were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative (HR+/HER2-) based on ASCO/CAP guidelines were re-classified as being HER2-low. In total, 51 patients had matched primary breast and BrM tissue available; results of HER2 status when categorized as HER2-zero, HER2-low and HER2-positive were concordant in 82.3% (n= 42/51) of cases (Cohen’s kappa 0.58, p=0.0719). In 7 cases, the primary breast tissue was HER2-zero whereas the BrM was either HER2-low (n=5) or HER2-positive (n=2). In only one case (2%), expression of HER2 was lower in the BrM (HER2-low) compared to the primary BC (HER2-positive). Median time from primary BC to the development of BrM was 35 months (IQR, 14-69) in the overall cohort; patients with HER2-zero BrM had a numerically longer time to development of BrM (45.8 months), compared to those with HER2-low (35 months) and HER2-positive (35 months) BrM (p=0.948). There was no significant association between HER2-zero, HER2-low and HER2-positive status in BrM and either bsPFS or OS. Conclusions: Among patients with surgically resected BrM, a high proportion of those with metastatic TNBC and HR+/HER2-negative disease have “HER2-low” BrM with potential to benefit from HER2-targeted therapy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207