Genomic Risk Scores and Therapy Response in Breast Cancer Patients: Clinical Modeling

Authors

  • Mona Youssef Pharmacognosy Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Gharbia, Egypt Author
  • Sara Hamed Pharmacognosy Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Gharbia, Egypt Author

Keywords:

Genomic Risk Scores, Breast Cancer, Clinical Modeling, Therapy Response, Precision Oncology

Abstract

The integration of genomic risk scores into clinical oncology has revolutionized the management of breast cancer, enabling a paradigm shift from empirical treatments to precision medicine. Despite the widespread adoption of multi-gene expression assays, accurately modeling the continuous relationship between genomic risk and specific therapy responses remains a complex challenge. This paper provides a comprehensive investigation into the utility of genomic risk scores for predicting therapeutic efficacy, utilizing advanced clinical modeling techniques on extensive breast cancer patient cohorts. By bridging transcriptomic profiles with clinical outcomes, we demonstrate how high-resolution predictive models can identify subsets of patients who will derive the most benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus those who can safely de-escalate to endocrine therapy alone. The analysis rigorously evaluates the statistical frameworks required to handle multidimensional genomic data, adjusting for traditional clinico-pathological confounders. Through the application of robust survival analysis and logistic modeling, this study reveals significant interaction effects between genomic risk strata and systemic therapy modalities. The findings not only validate the prognostic value of genomic profiling but also emphasize its predictive capability in guiding individualized treatment regimens. Ultimately, this research underscores the necessity of continuous refinement in clinical models to maximize therapeutic efficacy, minimize treatment-associated toxicities, and improve overall survival in breast cancer patients.

References

1. Jeon, H.B.; Lee, M.; Roh, T.S.; Jeong, J.; Ahn, S.G.; Bae, S.J.; Lee, N.; Kim, Y.S. Complications Including Capsular Contracture in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction with Textured Anatomical Versus Smooth Round Implants: A Single Center Retrospective Analysis. J. Breast Cancer 2023, 26, 25–34.

2. Yeo, K.R.; Jamei, M.; Rostami-Hodjegan, A. Predicting drug–drug interactions: Application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models under a systems biology approach. Expert. Rev. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013, 6, 143–157.

3. Jin, C.; Jin, Y.; Ding, Z.; Nuch, K.S.; Han, M.; Shim, J.; Chien, P.N.; Heo, C.Y. Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Wound Repair: From Biology to Therapeutic Innovation. Cells 2025, 14, 1850.

4. Vallée, A. Digital Twins for Personalized Medicine Require Epidemiological Data and Mathematical Modeling: Viewpoint. J. Med. Internet Res. 2025, 27, e72411.

5. Wu, Y.; Wang, A.; Peng, C.; Ouyang, Y.; Su, J.; Yang, X.; Shu, H.; Qi, H.; Huang, H.; Yang, L.; et al. Predicting early prone position ventilation responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome based on electrical impedance tomography: A prospective study. Crit. Care 2025, 30, 21. [ Central]

6. Darwich, A.S.; Polasek, T.M.; Aronson, J.K.; Ogungbenro, K.; Wright, D.F.B.; Achour, B.; Reny, J.L.; Daali, Y.; Eiermann, B.; Cook, J.; et al. Model-Informed Precision Dosing: Background, Requirements, Validation, Implementation, and Forward Trajectory of Individualizing Drug Therapy. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2021, 61, 225–245.

7. Vyas, K.; Taft, D.R. PBPK Modeling for Enhanced Drug Therapy in the Elderly Population and the Impact of Organ Impairment on Systemic Exposure. Curr. Pharmacol. Rep. 2025, 11, 10.

8. Silva, A.; Mourão, J.; Vale, N. Molecular Precision Medicine: Application of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling to Predict Drug-Drug Interactions Between Lidocaine and Rocuronium/Propofol/Paracetamol. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 1506.

9. Coroneos, C.J.; Selber, J.C.; Offodile, A.C.I.; Butler, C.E.; Clemens, M.W. US FDA Breast Implant Postapproval Studies: Long-Term Outcomes in 99,993 Patients. Ann. Surg. 2019, 269, 33–36.

10. Wang, H.; Arulraj, T.; Ippolito, A.; Popel, A.S. From virtual patients to digital twins in immuno-oncology: Lessons learned from mechanistic quantitative systems pharmacology modeling. NPJ Digit. Med. 2024, 7, 189.

11. Li, Y.H.; Xu, J.H.; Yang, J.J.; Tian, J.; Xu, J.G. Predictive performance of ‘Diprifusor’ TCI system in patients during upper abdominal surgery under propofol/fentanyl anesthesia. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B 2005, 6, 43–48.

12. He, H.; Chi, Y.; Yang, Y.; Yuan, S.; Long, Y.; Zhao, P.; Frerichs, I.; Fu, F.; Möller, K.; Zhao, Z. Early individualized positive end-expiratory pressure guided by electrical impedance tomography in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 230. [ Central]

13. Garcia, L.P. Mechanistic Based Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamics Models for Drug Interactions and Disease Population Predictions; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Uppsala, Sweden, 2023.

14. Dmitrienko, A.; Offen, W.W.; Westfall, P.H. Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Stat. Med. 2003, 22, 2387–2400.

15. Avendaño, A.L.E.M. Literature Review on the Different Types of Breast Implants: Advantages and Disadvantages. Int. J. Med. Sci. Clin. Res. Stud. 2023, 3, 990–994.

16. Mauri, T.; Spinelli, E.; Scotti, E.; Colussi, G.; Basile, M.C.; Crotti, S.; Tubiolo, D.; Tagliabue, P.; Zanella, A.; Grasselli, G.; et al. Potential for Lung Recruitment and Ventilation-Perfusion Mismatch in Patients With the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome From Coronavirus Disease 2019. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 48, 1129–1134. [ Central]

17. Murad, N.; Pasikanti, K.K.; Madej, B.D.; Minnich, A.; McComas, J.M.; Crouch, S.; Polli, J.W.; Weber, A.D. Predicting Volume of Distribution in Humans: Performance of In Silico Methods for a Large Set of Structurally Diverse Clinical Compounds. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2021, 49, 169–178.

18. Taskar, K.S.; Pilla Reddy, V.; Burt, H.; Posada, M.M.; Varma, M.; Zheng, M.; Ullah, M.; Emami Riedmaier, A.; Umehara, K.I.; Snoeys, J.; et al. Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Models for Evaluating Membrane Transporter Mediated Drug-Drug Interactions: Current Capabilities, Case Studies, Future Opportunities, and Recommendations. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020, 107, 1082–1115.

19. Somhorst, P.; van der Zee, P.; Endeman, H.; Gommers, D. PEEP-FiO2 table versus EIT to titrate PEEP in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Crit. Care 2022, 26, 272.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-19

Issue

Section

Articles