Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39705838›Full record

ArticleESMO open2025

Development of two machine learning models to predict conversion from primary HER2-0 breast cancer to HER2-low metastases: a proof-of-concept study.

F Miglietta, A Collesei, C Vernieri, T Giarratano, C A Giorgi, F Girardi, G Griguolo, M Cacciatore, A Botticelli, A Vingiani and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

F MigliettaOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy; Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
A ColleseiBioinformatics - Clinical Research Unit, Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IOV - IRCCS, Padova, Italy.
C VernieriMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (INT), Milan, Italy; Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Department University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
T GiarratanoOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy.
C A GiorgiOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy.
F GirardiOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy.
G GriguoloOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy; Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
M CacciatorePathology Unit, ULSS 9 - Treviso-Azienda ULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Treviso, Italy.
A BotticelliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Science, Policlinico Umberto I, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
A VingianiOncology and Hemato-Oncology, Department University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Department of Advanced Diagnostics, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
G FotiaMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (INT), Milan, Italy; Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Department University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
F PiacentiniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences for Children and Adults, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
D MassaOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy; Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
F ZanghìOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy; Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
M MarinoOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy; Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
G PruneriMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (INT), Milan, Italy; Department of Advanced Diagnostics, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
M FassanIstituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy; Pathology Unit, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera di Padova, Padova, Italy.
A P Dei TosPathology Unit, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera di Padova, Padova, Italy.
M V DieciOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy; Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. Electronic address: mariavittoria.dieci@unipd.it.
V GuarneriOncology Unit 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) - IRCCS, Padova, Italy; Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHER2-low expression has gained clinical relevance in breast cancer (BC) due to the availability of anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates for patients with HER2-low metastatic BC. The well-reported instability of HER2-low status during disease evolution highlights the need to identify patients with HER2-0 primary BC who may develop a HER2-low phenotype at relapse. In response to the urgency of maximizing treatment access, we utilized artificial intelligence to predict this occurrence. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe included a large multicentric retrospective cohort of patients with BC who underwent tissue resampling at relapse. The dataset was preprocessed to address relevant issues such as missing data, feature abundance, and target class imbalance. We then trained two models: one focused on explainability [Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)] and another aimed at performance (an ensemble of XGBoost and support vector machine).

resultsA total of 1200 patients were included in this study. Among 386 patients with HER2-0 primary BC and matched HER2 status at relapse, 42.5% (n = 157) converted to a HER2-low phenotype. The explainable model achieved a balanced accuracy of 58%, with a sensitivity of 53% and a specificity of 64%. The most important variables for this model were primary BC phenotype [mean Shapley value (SHAP) 0.540], primary BC histological type (SHAP 0.101), grade (SHAP 0.182), and sites of relapse (SHAP 0.008-0.213). The ensemble model had a balanced accuracy of 64%, with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 53%.

conclusionsThis work represents one of the first proof-of-concept applications of machine learning models to predict a highly relevant phenomenon for drug access in modern BC oncology. Starting with an explainable model and subsequently integrating it with an ensemble approach enabled us to enhance performance while maintaining transparency, explainability, and intelligibility.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesMachine LearningAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProof of Concept StudyRetrospective StudiesERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinasesbreast cancerexplainabilityHER2machine learning

Identifiers

PMID39705838
PMCPMC11730216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.