Predicting pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer using a machine learning approach.


Journal

Breast cancer research : BCR
ISSN: 1465-542X
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100927353

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 20 05 2024
accepted: 16 10 2024
medline: 30 10 2024
pubmed: 30 10 2024
entrez: 30 10 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

For patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), most of the existing prediction models of pathologic complete response (pCR) using clinicopathological features were based on standard statistical models like logistic regression, while models based on machine learning mostly utilized imaging data and/or gene expression data. This study aims to develop a robust and accessible machine learning model to predict pCR using clinicopathological features alone, which can be used to facilitate clinical decision-making in diverse settings. The model was developed and validated within the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB, 2018-2020) and an external cohort at the University of Chicago (2010-2020). We compared logistic regression and machine learning models, and examined whether incorporating quantitative clinicopathological features improved model performance. Decision curve analysis was conducted to assess the model's clinical utility. We identified 56,209 NCDB patients receiving NACT (pCR rate: 34.0%). The machine learning model incorporating quantitative clinicopathological features showed the best discrimination performance among all the fitted models [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.785, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.778-0.792], along with outstanding calibration performance. The model performed best among patients with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (AUC: 0.817, 95% CI: 0.802-0.832); and by adopting a 7% prediction threshold, the model achieved 90.5% sensitivity and 48.8% specificity, with decision curve analysis finding a 23.1% net reduction in chemotherapy use. In the external testing set of 584 patients (pCR rate: 33.4%), the model maintained robust performance both overall (AUC: 0.711, 95% CI: 0.668-0.753) and in the HR+/HER2- subgroup (AUC: 0.810, 95% CI: 0.742-0.878). The study developed a machine learning model ( https://huolab.cri.uchicago.edu/sample-apps/pcrmodel ) to predict pCR in breast cancer patients undergoing NACT that demonstrated robust discrimination and calibration performance. The model performed particularly well among patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer, having the potential to identify patients who are less likely to achieve pCR and can consider alternative treatment strategies over chemotherapy. The model can also serve as a robust baseline model that can be integrated with smaller datasets containing additional granular features in future research.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
For patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), most of the existing prediction models of pathologic complete response (pCR) using clinicopathological features were based on standard statistical models like logistic regression, while models based on machine learning mostly utilized imaging data and/or gene expression data. This study aims to develop a robust and accessible machine learning model to predict pCR using clinicopathological features alone, which can be used to facilitate clinical decision-making in diverse settings.
METHODS METHODS
The model was developed and validated within the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB, 2018-2020) and an external cohort at the University of Chicago (2010-2020). We compared logistic regression and machine learning models, and examined whether incorporating quantitative clinicopathological features improved model performance. Decision curve analysis was conducted to assess the model's clinical utility.
RESULTS RESULTS
We identified 56,209 NCDB patients receiving NACT (pCR rate: 34.0%). The machine learning model incorporating quantitative clinicopathological features showed the best discrimination performance among all the fitted models [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.785, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.778-0.792], along with outstanding calibration performance. The model performed best among patients with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (AUC: 0.817, 95% CI: 0.802-0.832); and by adopting a 7% prediction threshold, the model achieved 90.5% sensitivity and 48.8% specificity, with decision curve analysis finding a 23.1% net reduction in chemotherapy use. In the external testing set of 584 patients (pCR rate: 33.4%), the model maintained robust performance both overall (AUC: 0.711, 95% CI: 0.668-0.753) and in the HR+/HER2- subgroup (AUC: 0.810, 95% CI: 0.742-0.878).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The study developed a machine learning model ( https://huolab.cri.uchicago.edu/sample-apps/pcrmodel ) to predict pCR in breast cancer patients undergoing NACT that demonstrated robust discrimination and calibration performance. The model performed particularly well among patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer, having the potential to identify patients who are less likely to achieve pCR and can consider alternative treatment strategies over chemotherapy. The model can also serve as a robust baseline model that can be integrated with smaller datasets containing additional granular features in future research.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39472970
doi: 10.1186/s13058-024-01905-7
pii: 10.1186/s13058-024-01905-7
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

148

Subventions

Organisme : Susan G. Komen
ID : TREND21675016
Pays : United States
Organisme : Breast Cancer Research Foundation
ID : BCRF-23-071
Organisme : Breast Cancer Research Foundation
ID : BCRF-23-071
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P20CA233307
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P20CA233307
Pays : United States
Organisme : U.S. Department of Defense
ID : W81XWH2210791
Organisme : U.S. Department of Defense
ID : W81XWH2210791

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s).

Références

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.
pubmed: 35020204 doi: 10.3322/caac.21708
DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM, Newman LA, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, Jemal A, Siegel RL. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(6):438–51.
pubmed: 31577379 doi: 10.3322/caac.21583
Hayes DF, Schott AF. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy: what are the benefits for the patient and for the Investigator? J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2015;2015(51):36–9.
pubmed: 26063884 doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgv004
Korde LA, Somerfield MR, Carey LA, Crews JR, Denduluri N, Hwang ES, Khan SA, Loibl S, Morris EA, Perez A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy for breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(13):1485–505.
pubmed: 33507815 pmcid: 8274745 doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03399
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’, Collaborative G. Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):27–39.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30777-5
Matuschek C, Jazmati D, Bolke E, Tamaskovics B, Corradini S, Budach W, Krug D, Mohrmann S, Ruckhaberle E, Fehm T et al. Post-neoadjuvant treatment strategies in breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022, 14(5).
Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, Im YH, Lee ES, Yokota I, Kuroi K, Im SA, Park BW, Kim SB, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast Cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(22):2147–59.
pubmed: 28564564 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645
von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS, Loibl S, Mamounas EP, Untch M, Wolmark N, Rastogi P, Schneeweiss A, Redondo A, et al. Trastuzumab Emtansine for residual invasive HER2-Positive breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(7):617–28.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, Bonnefoi H, Cameron D, Gianni L, Valagussa P, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72.
pubmed: 24529560 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8
Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, Pusztai L, McArthur H, Kummel S, Bergh J, Denkert C, Park YH, Hui R, et al. Event-free survival with Pembrolizumab in Early Triple-negative breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(6):556–67.
pubmed: 35139274 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
Shubeck S, Zhao F, Howard FM, Olopade OI, Huo D. Response to treatment, racial and Ethnic Disparity, and survival in patients with breast Cancer undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e235834.
pubmed: 36995711 pmcid: 10064248 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.5834
Zhao F, Miyashita M, Hattori M, Yoshimatsu T, Howard F, Kaneva K, Jones R, Bell JSK, Fleming GF, Jaskowiak N, et al. Racial disparities in pathological complete response among patients receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for early-stage breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e233329.
pubmed: 36995716 pmcid: 10064259 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3329
Kayl AE, Meyers CA. Side-effects of chemotherapy and quality of life in ovarian and breast cancer patients. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;18(1):24–8.
pubmed: 16493256 doi: 10.1097/01.gco.0000192996.20040.24
Jim HS, Phillips KM, Chait S, Faul LA, Popa MA, Lee YH, Hussin MG, Jacobsen PB, Small BJ. Meta-analysis of cognitive functioning in breast cancer survivors previously treated with standard-dose chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(29):3578–87.
pubmed: 22927526 pmcid: 3462044 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.5640
Bertsimas D, Wiberg H. Machine learning in Oncology: methods, applications, and challenges. JCO Clin Cancer Inf. 2020;4:885–94.
doi: 10.1200/CCI.20.00072
Keskin S, Muslumanoglu M, Saip P, Karanlik H, Guveli M, Pehlivan E, Aydogan F, Eralp Y, Aydiner A, Yavuz E, et al. Clinical and pathological features of breast cancer associated with the pathological complete response to anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncology. 2011;81(1):30–8.
pubmed: 21912195 doi: 10.1159/000330766
Kantor O, Sipsy LM, Yao K, James TA. A predictive model for Axillary Node Pathologic Complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(5):1304–11.
pubmed: 29368152 doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6345-5
Goorts B, van Nijnatten TJ, de Munck L, Moossdorff M, Heuts EM, de Boer M, Lobbes MB, Smidt ML. Clinical tumor stage is the most important predictor of pathological complete response rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;163(1):83–91.
pubmed: 28205044 pmcid: 5387027 doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4155-2
Greenwell K, Hussain L, Lee D, Bramlage M, Bills G, Mehta A, Jackson A, Wexelman B. Complete pathologic response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases with increasing HER2/CEP17 ratio in HER2 overexpressing breast cancer: analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;181(2):249–54.
pubmed: 32277375 doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05599-1
Dieci MV, Griguolo G, Bottosso M, Tsvetkova V, Giorgi CA, Vernaci G, Michieletto S, Angelini S, Marchet A, Tasca G, et al. Impact of estrogen receptor levels on outcome in non-metastatic triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021;7(1):101.
pubmed: 34341356 pmcid: 8329161 doi: 10.1038/s41523-021-00308-7
Landmann A, Farrugia DJ, Zhu L, Diego EJ, Johnson RR, Soran A, Dabbs DJ, Clark BZ, Puhalla SL, Jankowitz RC, et al. Low estrogen receptor (ER)-Positive breast Cancer and neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy: is response similar to typical ER-Positive or ER-Negative disease? Am J Clin Pathol. 2018;150(1):34–42.
pubmed: 29741562 doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqy028
Tao M, Chen S, Zhang X, Zhou Q. Ki-67 labeling index is a predictive marker for a pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Med (Baltim). 2017;96(51):e9384.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009384
Peiffer DS, Zhao F, Chen N, Hahn OM, Nanda R, Olopade OI, Huo D, Howard FM. Clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis of ERBB2-Low breast Cancer among patients in the National Cancer Database. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(4):500–10.
pubmed: 36821125 pmcid: 9951099 doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.7476
Cain EH, Saha A, Harowicz MR, Marks JR, Marcom PK, Mazurowski MA. Multivariate machine learning models for prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer using MRI features: a study using an independent validation set. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173(2):455–63.
pubmed: 30328048 doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4990-9
Gass P, Lux MP, Rauh C, Hein A, Bani MR, Fiessler C, Hartmann A, Haberle L, Pretscher J, Erber R, et al. Prediction of pathological complete response and prognosis in patients with neoadjuvant treatment for triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):1051.
pubmed: 30373556 pmcid: 6206705 doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4925-1
Qu YH, Zhu HT, Cao K, Li XT, Ye M, Sun YS. Prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer using a deep learning (DL) method. Thorac Cancer. 2020;11(3):651–8.
pubmed: 31944571 pmcid: 7049483 doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.13309
Howard FM, He G, Peterson JR, Pfeiffer JR, Earnest T, Pearson AT, Abe H, Cole JA, Nanda R. Highly accurate response prediction in high-risk early breast cancer patients using a biophysical simulation platform. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;196(1):57–66.
pubmed: 36063220 pmcid: 9550684 doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06722-0
Ren Z, Pineda FD, Howard FM, Hill E, Szasz T, Safi R, Medved M, Nanda R, Yankeelov TE, Abe H, et al. Differences between Ipsilateral and Contralateral Early Parenchymal Enhancement kinetics Predict response of breast Cancer to Neoadjuvant Therapy. Acad Radiol. 2022;29(10):1469–79.
pubmed: 35351365 doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2022.02.008
Ren Z, Pineda FD, Howard FM, Fan X, Nanda R, Abe H, Kulkarni K, Karczmar GS. Bilateral asymmetry of quantitative parenchymal kinetics at ultrafast DCE-MRI predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with HER2 + breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging. 2023;104:9–15.
pubmed: 37611646 doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2023.08.003
Basmadjian RB, Kong S, Boyne DJ, Jarada TN, Xu Y, Cheung WY, Lupichuk S, Quan ML, Brenner DR. Developing a prediction model for pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast Cancer: a comparison of Model Building approaches. JCO Clin Cancer Inf. 2022;6:e2100055.
doi: 10.1200/CCI.21.00055
Kim JY, Jeon E, Kwon S, Jung H, Joo S, Park Y, Lee SK, Lee JE, Nam SJ, Cho EY, et al. Prediction of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using machine learning models in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;189(3):747–57.
pubmed: 34224056 doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06310-8
Meti N, Saednia K, Lagree A, Tabbarah S, Mohebpour M, Kiss A, Lu FI, Slodkowska E, Gandhi S, Jerzak KJ, et al. Machine learning frameworks to Predict Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy response in breast Cancer using clinical and pathological features. JCO Clin Cancer Inf. 2021;5:66–80.
doi: 10.1200/CCI.20.00078
Jung JJ, Kim EK, Kang E, Kim JH, Kim SH, Suh KJ, Kim SM, Jang M, Yun B, Park SY, et al. Development and External Validation of a machine learning model to predict pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast Cancer. J Breast Cancer. 2023;26(4):353–62.
pubmed: 37272242 pmcid: 10475713 doi: 10.4048/jbc.2023.26.e14
Mallin K, Browner A, Palis B, Gay G, McCabe R, Nogueira L, Yabroff R, Shulman L, Facktor M, Winchester DP, et al. Incident cases captured in the National Cancer Database compared with those in U.S. Population Based Central Cancer registries in 2012–2014. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(6):1604–12.
pubmed: 30737668 doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07213-1
Zhao F, Copley B, Niu Q, Liu F, Johnson JA, Sutton T, Khramtsova G, Sveen E, Yoshimatsu TF, Zheng Y, et al. Racial disparities in survival outcomes among breast cancer patients by molecular subtypes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;185(3):841–9.
pubmed: 33111220 doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05984-w
Shang L, Hattori M, Fleming G, Jaskowiak N, Hedeker D, Olopade OI, Huo D. Impact of post-diagnosis weight change on survival outcomes in Black and White breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2021;23(1):18.
pubmed: 33541403 pmcid: 7863526 doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01397-9
Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(6):613–9.
pubmed: 1607900 doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8
van der Laan MJ, Polley EC, Hubbard AE. Super learner. Stat Appl Genet Mol 2007, 6.
Super Learner. In Prediction [ https://biostats.bepress.com/ucbbiostat/paper266 ]
Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, Muller M. pROC: an open-source package for R and S + to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011;12:77.
pubmed: 21414208 pmcid: 3068975 doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45.
pubmed: 3203132 doi: 10.2307/2531595
Rufibach K. Use of Brier score to assess binary predictions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):938–9. author reply 939.
pubmed: 20189763 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.009
Austin PC, Steyerberg EW. The Integrated Calibration Index (ICI) and related metrics for quantifying the calibration of logistic regression models. Stat Med. 2019;38(21):4051–65.
pubmed: 31270850 pmcid: 6771733 doi: 10.1002/sim.8281
Vickers AJ, van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. A simple, step-by-step guide to interpreting decision curve analysis. Diagn Progn Res. 2019;3:18.
pubmed: 31592444 pmcid: 6777022 doi: 10.1186/s41512-019-0064-7
van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1–67.
doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03
Sisk R, Sperrin M, Peek N, van Smeden M, Martin GP. Imputation and missing indicators for handling missing data in the development and deployment of clinical prediction models: a simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res. 2023;32(8):1461–77.
pubmed: 37105540 pmcid: 10515473 doi: 10.1177/09622802231165001
Ma H, Lu Y, Marchbanks PA, Folger SG, Strom BL, McDonald JA, Simon MS, Weiss LK, Malone KE, Burkman RT, et al. Quantitative measures of estrogen receptor expression in relation to breast cancer-specific mortality risk among white women and black women. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(5):R90.
pubmed: 24070170 pmcid: 3978823 doi: 10.1186/bcr3486
Yi M, Huo L, Koenig KB, Mittendorf EA, Meric-Bernstam F, Kuerer HM, Bedrosian I, Buzdar AU, Symmans WF, Crow JR, et al. Which threshold for ER positivity? A retrospective study based on 9639 patients. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(5):1004–11.
pubmed: 24562447 pmcid: 3999801 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu053
Allison KH, Hammond MEH, Dowsett M, McKernin SE, Carey LA, Fitzgibbons PL, Hayes DF, Lakhani SR, Chavez-MacGregor M, Perlmutter J, et al. Estrogen and progesterone receptor testing in breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(12):1346–66.
pubmed: 31928404 doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02309
Kimambo AH, Vuhahula EA, Mwakigonja AR, Ljung BM, Zhang L, Van Loon K, Ng DL. Evaluating estrogen receptor immunohistochemistry on cell blocks from breast Cancer patients in a low-resource setting. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021;145(7):834–41.
pubmed: 33053150 pmcid: 9124437 doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0086-OA
Brown J, Scardo S, Method M, Schlauch D, Misch A, Picard S, Hamilton E, Jones S, Burris H, Spigel D. A real-world retrospective study of the use of Ki-67 testing and treatment patterns in patients with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer in the United States. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):502.
pubmed: 35524219 pmcid: 9074265 doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09557-6
Harbeck N, Rastogi P, Martin M, Tolaney SM, Shao ZM, Fasching PA, Huang CS, Jaliffe GG, Tryakin A, Goetz MP, et al. Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(12):1571–81.
pubmed: 34656740 doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.015
Harbeck N, Burstein HJ, Hurvitz SA, Johnston S, Vidal GA. A look at current and potential treatment approaches for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Cancer. 2022;128(Suppl 11):2209–23.
pubmed: 35536015 doi: 10.1002/cncr.34161
Twelves C, Bartsch R, Ben-Baruch NE, Borstnar S, Dirix L, Tesarova P, Timcheva C, Zhukova L, Pivot X. The place of Chemotherapy in the Evolving Treatment Landscape for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC. Clin Breast Cancer. 2022;22(3):223–34.
pubmed: 34844889 doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2021.10.007
Akhade A, Van Wambeke S, Gyawali B. CDK 4/6 inhibitors for adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer-Do we have a clear winner? Ecancermedicalscience 2022, 16:ed124.
Jacobson A. Benefits of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Differ by Menopausal Status in Women with HR+/HER2- early breast Cancer, 1–3 positive nodes, and a low recurrence score. Oncologist. 2022;27(Suppl 1):S15–6.
pubmed: 35348778 pmcid: 8963289 doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac012
Freeman JQ, Shubeck S, Howard FM, Chen N, Nanda R, Huo D. Evaluation of multigene assays as predictors for response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer patients. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2023;9(1):33.
pubmed: 37149628 pmcid: 10164191 doi: 10.1038/s41523-023-00536-z
Sammut SJ, Crispin-Ortuzar M, Chin SF, Provenzano E, Bardwell HA, Ma W, Cope W, Dariush A, Dawson SJ, Abraham JE, et al. Multi-omic machine learning predictor of breast cancer therapy response. Nature. 2022;601(7894):623–9.
pubmed: 34875674 doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04278-5
Prat A, Guarneri V, Pascual T, Braso-Maristany F, Sanfeliu E, Pare L, Schettini F, Martinez D, Jares P, Griguolo G, et al. Development and validation of the new HER2DX assay for predicting pathological response and survival outcome in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. EBioMedicine. 2022;75:103801.
pubmed: 34990895 pmcid: 8741424 doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103801
Villacampa G, Tung NM, Pernas S, Pare L, Bueno-Muino C, Echavarria I, Lopez-Tarruella S, Roche-Molina M, Del Monte-Millan M, Marin-Aguilera M, et al. Association of HER2DX with pathological complete response and survival outcomes in HER2-positive breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2023;34(9):783–95.
pubmed: 37302750 doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.05.012

Auteurs

Fangyuan Zhao (F)

Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.

Eric Polley (E)

Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Julian McClellan (J)

Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Frederick Howard (F)

Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology and Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Olufunmilayo I Olopade (OI)

Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology and Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Dezheng Huo (D)

Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. dhuo@bsd.uchicago.edu.
Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology and Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. dhuo@bsd.uchicago.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH