MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PO4-16-02: Can high progesterone receptor (PgR) expression identify tumours with low-risk tumour gene expression scores?

2024· article· en· W4396591900 on OpenAlexaff
Robert C. Stein, Ralph Wirtz, Andrea Marshall, Jane Bayani, Sebastian Eidt, Claudia Schumacher, Hans‐Peter Sinn, Andreas Schneeweiß, Andreas Makris, Iain R. Macpherson, Luke Hughes‐Davies, Tammy Piper, Monika Sobol, Georgina Dotchin, Helen Higgins, Sarah E. Pinder, Abeer M. Shaaban, Janet Dunn, John M.S. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetastasis and carcinoma case studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgesterone receptorOestrogen receptorCancer researchGeneGene expressionInternal medicineBiologyMedicineOncologyCancerEndocrinologyBreast cancerGeneticsEstrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Strong PgR expression predicts favorable outcomes for ER+ve HER2-ve breast cancer and has been proposed as a surrogate marker to distinguish between IHC-defined luminal A and luminal B subtypes. It is therefore possible that strong PgR expression may be able to predict tumor gene expression test results and independently identify tumors that are unlikely to be chemotherapy sensitive. PgR expression is traditionally determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Several validated RNA-based PGR expression tests have been developed that may outperform IHC. Methods We compared Oncotype DX RS with Oncotype DX reported PGR in 4 independent datasets which included 407 cases from the OPTIMA prelim trial. We further analyzed 251 OPTIMA prelim cases which had additional tumor gene expression data. All gene expression assays were performed by the test vendor, including PGR gene expression determined using the Mammatyper assay. PgR IHC was determined in a single laboratory on triplicate tissue micro-arrays using quantitative image analysis including a 10% manual quality control check. We analyzed PGR expression using cutoffs that correspond to approximately 20% staining; the standard Oncotype DX PGR assay is reported as positive if the score is >5.4, corresponding to approximately 1% staining by IHC. We used Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient to compare PGR data. Results The four Oncotype DX datasets consistently demonstrated that high Oncotype PGR expression was associated with a low RS (table). Combining the 3 validation data sets consisting of 633 cases, 70.9% had high PGR expression of which 92.7% had a an Oncotype RS ≤25. Approximately 50% of cases with low Oncotype PGR expression had an Oncotype RS >25. Mammatyper and Oncotype PGR were highly correlated (Rs = 0.9258, P< 0.001) in the OPTIMA prelim dataset (n=251), with only 8.4% of tumors having discordant high/low Mammatyper and Oncotype PGR scores. 93.2% of 176 Mammatyper high PGR expression cases had an RS ≤25. The Mammatyper PGR and PgR IHC correlation was weaker (Rs=0.763, P< 0.001); 87.2% of 211 cases with >20% staining had RS ≤25. PgR IHC staining had a bimodal distribution and there was little effect on the prediction of low RS score up to a 67% cut-off. Mammatyper and Oncotype PGR scores both appear to have a normal distribution. We took advantage of this to perform an exploratory analysis using a higher Mammatyper PGR cutoff. We were able to show superior prediction of a low RS (96.8%) but with a reduced proportion (50.2%) of high PGR score tumors. High PGR gene expression was weakly associated with low (≤60) Prosigna ROR_PT score and MammaPrint low risk (72.2% and 65.9% respectively) and with Prosigna and MammaPrint luminal A subtype (both 64.8%). Conclusion High progesterone receptor gene expression measured using locally performed RNA-based assays may allow the reliable prediction of Oncotype DX low-risk tumours. This analysis provides additional information for the clinical utility of PGR measurement. Additional data will be presented on the optimal PGR cutoff. OPTIMA prelim is registered as ISRCTN42400492 and funded by the UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, award number 10/34/01. Views expressed are those of the authors and not those of the HTA Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health. Table. Oncotype DX RS and PGR in 4 datasets Distribution of RS according to %cases with high or low PGR Citation Format: Robert Stein, Ralph Wirtz, Andrea Marshall, Jane Bayani, Sebastian Eidt, Claudia Schumacher, Hans-Peter Sinn, Andreas Schneeweiss, Andreas Makris, Iain Macpherson, Luke Hughes-Davies, Tammy Piper, Monika Sobol, Georgina Dotchin, Helen Higgins, Sarah Pinder, Abeer Shaaban, Janet Dunn, John MS Bartlett. Can high progesterone receptor (PgR) expression identify tumours with low-risk tumour gene expression scores? [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 PO4-16-02.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 ResearchSame topicMetastasis and carcinoma case studiesFrench-language works237,207