Patient and Physician Perceptions on Continuing Aromatase Inhibitors beyond the 5-Year Mark
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been shown to improve disease-free survival and in certain cases, overall survival in the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive early breast cancer. Trials are ongoing to determine if AI therapy should be continued for patients who have already completed 5 years of AI treatment. The objective of this study was to assess the minimum disease-free and overall survival benefit acceptable to physicians and to women undergoing AI therapy to continue treatment beyond 5 years. A self-administered survey was completed by women with stage I-III breast cancer, who were undergoing adjuvant AI therapy for at least 1 year. The survey assessed relevant cancer-related, treatment, social and comorbid factors, and FACT-ES (V4). Minimum acceptable treatment benefit was denoted as a percentage decrease in cancer recurrence risk, and percentage increase in survival at 5 years. Medical oncologists (MOs) treating breast cancer across Canada were also surveyed. A total of 153 patients were surveyed; median age was 60, 51% had node-negative disease, 89% had prior radiation therapy, 61% had prior chemotherapy, and 59% had prior tamoxifen therapy. Mean duration of AI therapy was 31 months. Approximately 30% of women required a 5-year survival benefit of less than 1%, and 27.5% needed a decrease in risk of recurrence of less than 1% to continue an AI beyond the initial 5 years. In contrast, 45% of the 40 surveyed MOs required a 5-year survival benefit of at least 1-2%, and 37.5% preferred a decrease in recurrence risk of 2-5% to prescribe an AI for an additional 5 years. There was a significant correlation between severity of endocrine symptoms experienced on AIs and an increased minimum survival benefit required for women to continue therapy (r = 0.18, p = 0.036). Patients were willing to continue on AIs for smaller treatment benefits than physicians would prefer to prescribe them beyond 5 years. Patient preference to continue on AIs correlated somewhat to the severity of AI-related side effects.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».