Chemoprevention of breast cancer. A joint guideline from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the Canadian Breast Cancer Initiative's Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To assist women and their physicians in making decisions regarding the prevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen and raloxifene. EVIDENCE: Systematic review of English-language literature published from 1966 to August 2000 retrieved from MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, Current Contents and Cochrane Library. VALUES: The strength of evidence was evaluated using the methods of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. RECOMMENDATIONS: Women at low or normal risk of breast cancer (Gail risk assessment index < 1.66% at 5 years): There is fair evidence to recommend against the use of tamoxifen to reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at low or normal risk of the disease (grade D recommendation). Women at higher risk of breast cancer (Gail index > or = 1.66% at 5 years): Evidence supports counselling women at high risk on the potential benefits and harms of breast cancer prevention with tamoxifen (grade B recommendation). The cutoff for defining high risk is arbitrary, but the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study included women with a 5-year projected risk of at least 1.66% according to the Gail index, and the average risk of patients entered in the trial was 3.2%. Examples of high-risk clinical situations are 2 first-degree relatives with breast cancer, a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or a history of atypical hyperplasia. As the risk of breast cancer increases above 5% and the benefits outweigh the harms, a woman may choose to take tamoxifen. The duration of tamoxifen use in such situations is 5 years based on the results from trials of tamoxifen involving women with early breast cancer. If a woman raises concerns or has already been evaluated and is calculated to be at high risk, then individuals experienced and skilled in counselling may discuss the potential benefits and harms of tamoxifen use. Important additional issues: Prevention of breast cancer with raloxifene: Current evidence does not support recommending chemoprevention of breast cancer with raloxifene outside of a clinical trial setting. Screening using the Gail risk assessment index: This index was the main eligibility criterion for enrolling women in the one study that showed potential benefit from chemoprevention. However, it has not been evaluated for use as a routine screening or case-finding instrument; validation of the index is required. Overall, current evidence does not support a shift to its routine use in physicians' offices for screening or case finding. However, when a woman or her physician is concerned about the woman's increased risk of breast cancer, the index can be a useful tool in deciding whether to pursue an in-depth discussion of the potential benefits and harms of chemoprevention. Hence, the approach to identifying women at higher risk who warrant counselling and shared decision-making will vary across practices. (The risk assessment index is available online at http://bcra.nci.nih.gov/brc/). [A patient version of these guidelines appears in Appendix 2.] VALIDATION: The authors' original text was revised by both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. The final document reflects a consensus of these contributors. SPONSOR: Health Canada. COMPLETION DATE: February 2001.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,036 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».