Differential Burden of Rare and Common Variants on Tumor Characteristics, Survival, and Mode of Detection in Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic variants that increase breast cancer risk can be rare or common. This study tests whether the genetic risk stratification of breast cancer by rare and common variants in established loci can discriminate tumors with different biology, patient survival, and mode of detection. Multinomial logistic regression tested associations between genetic risk load [protein-truncating variant (PTV) carriership in 31 breast cancer predisposition genes—or polygenic risk score (PRS) using 162 single-nucleotide polymorphisms], tumor characteristics, and mode of detection (OR). Ten-year breast cancer–specific survival (HR) was estimated using Cox regression models. In this unselected cohort of 5,099 patients with breast cancer diagnosed in Sweden between 2001 and 2008, PTV carriers (n = 597) were younger and associated with more aggressive tumor phenotypes (ER-negative, large size, high grade, high proliferation, luminal B, and basal-like subtype) and worse outcome (HR, 1.65; 1.16–2.36) than noncarriers. After excluding 92 BRCA1/2 carriers, PTV carriership remained associated with high grade and worse survival (HR, 1.76; 1.21–2.56). In 5,007 BRCA1/2 noncarriers, higher PRS was associated with less aggressive tumor characteristics (ER-positive, PR-positive, small size, low grade, low proliferation, and luminal A subtype). Among patients with low mammographic density (<25%), non-BRCA1/2 PTV carriers were more often interval than screen-detected breast cancer (OR, 1.89; 1.12–3.21) than noncarriers. In contrast, higher PRS was associated with lower risk of interval compared with screen-detected cancer (OR, 0.77; 0.64–0.93) in women with low mammographic density. These findings suggest that rare and common breast cancer susceptibility loci are differentially associated with tumor characteristics, survival, and mode of detection. Significance: These findings offer the potential to improve screening practices for breast cancer by providing a deeper understanding of how risk variants affect disease progression and mode of detection. Cancer Res; 78(21); 6329–38. ©2018 AACR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".