MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403537732 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103761

15P Germline predictors of recurrence in patients with ER-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer: A GWAS analysis of multiple cohorts totaling 10,640 patients

2024· article· en· W4403537732 on OpenAlexaff
É. Turcotte, Emilie Thomas, X. Pivot, Inês Machado Vaz, J.-F. Deleuze, Catherine Gaudin, Marjorie Mauduit, Ellen Blanc, Jérôme Lemonnier, Céline Faure-Mercier, Alain Viari, William Jacot, Fabrice André, Thomas Bachelot

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital Fleurimont
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsBreast cancerGermlineMedicineOncologyInternal medicineGenome-wide association studyHER2 negativeCancerGeneticsBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypeGeneMetastatic breast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results: Preliminary results on the first 15 pts are reported; ten (66.7%) received lurbinectedin as 2L, five (33.3%) as third line.A trend towards a longer mPFS to lurbinectedin was observed in SLFN11-H pts, as well as to other 2L treatments, although without statistical significance.A longer mPFS to 1L therapy (9.1 vs 5.2 months, p0.004,HR 0.12, 95%CI 0.24-0.63)and mOS (31.2 vs 14.1 months, p0.022,HR 0.21, 95%CI 0.53-0.89)were observed in SLFN11-H pts.SLFN11 levels were higher in the tumor than in the stroma (p0.014) and were variably expressed in infiltrating immune cells; a higher density of CD163+ macrophages (p0.020), and a lower density of intratumoral CD20+ B lymphocytes (p0.027) were observed in SLFN11-H pts.Conclusions: SLFN11 higher expression correlates with better outcomes to 1L therapy and suggests a predictive value to lurbinectedin in second or further lines.Validation analyses on a wider population are currently ongoing and will be presented at the conference.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO OpenSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207