MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract PO4-08-09: Concordance analysis of paired breast cancer core needle biopsies and surgical excision samples using the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® assay

2024· article· en· W4396591594 on OpenAlexaff
Aziza Nassar, Jodi M. Carter, Paige Innis, Satish Seerapu, Christy Russell, Helena Hanna, Abigail Lochala, Minetta C. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceMedicineBreast cancerCore biopsySurgical excisionOncologyCancerInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® (RS) assay is validated to predict risk of distant recurrence at 10 years and the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)+, HER2- early breast cancer who receive 5 years of endocrine therapy. The feasibility of Oncotype DX® testing with diagnostic core needle biopsies (CNB) was demonstrated through analysis of a large commercial laboratory experience. The neoadjuvant ADAPT study showed the clinical utility of deriving the Recurrence Score® (RS) result from CNB as well. However, data are limited on concordance of RS results from paired CNB and surgical samples. Our primary objective was to determine the degree of concordance of RS results between paired tissue samples from the same primary breast tumor of patients with early stage, ER+, HER2- invasive breast cancer who had a CNB and subsequent surgical excision (SE; lumpectomy or mastectomy) without intervening systemic therapy. METHODS: Patients with a commercial RS result on either CNB or subsequent SE were identified through medical record and clinical database review. A pathologist reviewed archival tissue samples to confirm eligibility and selected the other paired CNB or SE block most representative of the tumor tissue for subsequent study Oncotype DX testing. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient and tumor characteristics. Wilcoxon signed rank, McNemar’s and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare RS between SE and CNB paired samples. Cohen’s Kappa and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare the agreement of categorical RS (0-25 and 26-100) result between SE and CNB paired samples. Lin’s concordance correlation and 95% CIs were used to compare agreement of continuous RS between paired samples. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were identified with paired CNB and SE samples with a median time of 34 (range 5-103) days between collections. Of the 134 patients, a commercial RS result was available for 25 (18.7%) with CNB and 109 (81.3%) with SE. A study RS result was then generated on the other paired sample. Median age was 62 years (range 33-99; 23 patients [17%] were age ≤50 vs. 111 [83%] age >50). Cases were predominantly node negative (107/134 node negative vs. 26/134 node positive; 1/134 unknown) invasive ductal carcinomas (104/134 ductal vs. 18/134 classic lobular vs. 12/134 other). Mean RS results were 15.6 (range 0-56) and 16.6 (range 0-59) for CNB and SE, respectively (p = 0.003), with no statistically significant differences in RS category defined as low vs. high risk (119/134 CNB vs. 114/134 SE for RS 0-25 and 15/134 CNB vs 20/134 SE for RS 26-100; p = 0.13) or low vs. intermediate vs. high risk (85/134 CNB vs. 78/134 SE for RS 0-17 and 43/134 CNB vs. 48/134 SE for RS 18-30 and 6/134 CNB vs. 8/134 SE for RS 31-100; p = 0.19). No differences were observed based on age relative to 50 years or nodal status (data not shown). Cohen’s Kappa statistic k = 0.64 (95% CI, 0.44-0.83) supports substantial agreement between the CNB and SE samples. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) demonstrates similar agreement for the continuous RS result between paired samples (CCC = 0.86 [0.80-0.90]). Overall percent agreement was 91.8% (87.1-96.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies evaluating the level of concordance of ER, progesterone receptor, and HER2 biomarker status between CNB and SE samples have found high concordance rates, albeit varied. We now provide data demonstrating high concordance of RS results between CNB and SE specimens obtained from the same breast primary tumor without intervening systemic therapy. This supports use of either biopsy source for testing with a genomic predictor to identify those patients who will most likely benefit from chemotherapy and which patients may be spared. Citation Format: Aziza Nassar, Jodi Carter, Paige Innis, Satish Seerapu, Christy Russell, Helena Hanna, Abigail Lochala, Minetta Liu. Concordance analysis of paired breast cancer core needle biopsies and surgical excision samples using the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® assay [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO4-08-09.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→