MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Genomic risk stratification in breast cancer: A 10-year follow-up of a single-institution prospective cohort comparing Oncotype DX and MammaPrint.

2025· article· en· W4410821606 on OpenAlexaff
Feras A. Moria, Turki Alotaibi, Eliana Rohr, Nathaniel Bouganim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerRisk stratificationOncologyCohortInternal medicineProspective cohort studyGynecologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e13083 Background: This study investigates the concordance between the 21-gene recurrence score assay, Oncotype DX (ODX), and the 70-gene signature MammaPrint (MP) in a single academic center and evaluates their correlation with breast cancer outcomes. We previously reported a discordance between MP and ODX results; here, we present a 10-year follow-up survival data. Methods: This prospective cohort study included eighty-six consecutive patients between 2012-2014 with node-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer whose tumor samples were tested using ODX. Based on ODX recurrence scores (RS), patients were treated with either a chemotherapy plus hormonal therapy group or a hormonal therapy-alone group. All patients were per standard practices at our institution. MP was subsequently performed on all samples, classifying patients as either low-risk (MP-L) or high-risk (MP-H). ODX risk classification was defined as intermediate/high risk (ODX-H) for RS ≥ 26 in postmenopausal and ≥ 16 in premenopausal patients (As defined by the TAILORx trial, the addition of chemotherapy to endocrine therapy resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 1.6% in distant recurrence-free survival), and otherwise low risk (ODX-L) (ODX ≤ 26 in postmenopausal or ≤ 15 in premenopausal). Results: In the overall population, the 10-year overall survival (OS), disease recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) were 93%, 91%, and 86%, respectively. Patients classified as ODX-H had lower survival rates (OS: 88%, DRFS: 86%, BCFI: 84%) compared to MP-H patients (OS: 92%, DRFS: 89%, BCFI: 87%). Patients classified as ODX-L had numerically better outcomes than MP-L patients (OS: 100%, DRFS: 97%, BCFI: 89%) compared to (OS: 94%, DRFS: 92%, BCFI: 86%). Approximately 29% of ODX-L patients were classified as MP-H, yet these patients demonstrated favorable long-term outcomes. Conclusions: Despite the limitations of a small sample size, our findings suggest that for patients with node negative hormonal receptor positive breast cancer ODX predicts better prognosis and response to chemotherapy than MP. Future prospective randomized trials directly comparing different genomic assays are warranted to optimize risk stratification and treatment decisions. Breast cancer outcomes based on genomic assay risk classification. Genomic assay / outcomes ODX MP High (n = 51) Low (n = 35) High (n = 37) Low (n = 49) OS 88% 100% 92% 94% DRFS 86% 97% 89% 92% BCFI 84% 89% 87% 86%

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.335 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→