Abstract P4-08-01: Effects of exercise during adjuvant chemotherapy on clinical outcomes in early stage breast cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Observational studies suggest that physical activity following a diagnosis of breast cancer may be associated with a lower risk of recurrence and death. Some studies also suggest possible effect modification by disease stage, body mass index, and receptor status. To date, however, there are no randomized trials examining the effects of exercise on disease outcomes in any cancer patient group. Here, we report an exploratory follow-up of disease outcomes from the Supervised Trial of Aerobic versus Resistance Training (START). Patients and Methods: The START Trial was a Canadian multicenter trial that randomized 242 breast cancer patients starting adjuvant chemotherapy to either usual care (n = 82) or supervised aerobic (n = 78) or resistance (n = 82) exercise for the duration of their chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint for this exploratory analysis was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and recurrence-free interval (RFI). The two exercise arms were combined for the analysis (n = 160) and selected subgroups were explored. Results: After a median follow-up of 89 months (IQR 81 to 96), there were 25/160 (15.6%) DFS events in the exercise groups and 18/82 (22.0%) in the control group (log-rank p = 0.21). Eight-year DFS was 82.7% for the exercise groups compared with 75.6% for the control group (Hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.37-1.24). There were 13/160 (8.1%) deaths in the exercise groups and 11/82 (13.4%) in the control group (log-rank p = 0.21). Eight-year OS was 91.2% in the exercise groups compared with 82.7% in the control group (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.27 to 1.33. There were 20/160 (12.5%) DDFS events in the exercise groups and 16/82 (19.5%) in the control group (log-rank p = 0.15). Eight-year DDFS was 86.7% in the exercise groups compared with 78.3% in the control group (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.32 to 1.19). Finally, there were 20/160 (12.5%) RFI events in the exercise groups and 17/82 (20.7%) in the control group (Gray's p = 0.095). Eight-year cumulative incidence of RFI was 12.6% in the exercise groups compared with 21.6% in the control group (HR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.30 to 1.11). Subgroup analyses for DFS and RFI suggested stronger effects for women who were overweight/obese, had stage II/III cancer, receptor positive tumors, HER2 positive tumors, received taxane-based chemotherapies, and received at least 85% of their intended chemotherapy dose-intensity. The most notable subgroup effect was for patients who received optimal chemotherapy dosing with a borderline significant effect for DFS (HR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.25 to 1.01) and a significant effect for RFI (HR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.81). Conclusions: In this exploratory follow-up of the START Trial, there was a suggestion that exercise during adjuvant chemotherapy may improve several efficacy endpoints although none achieved statistical significance. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the effects appear to be meaningful with absolute 8-year survival differences between 7% and 9% and relative rate reductions between 30% and 40%. The START Trial provides the first randomized data to suggest that adding exercise to standard chemotherapy for breast cancer may improve outcomes. A definitive phase III trial is warranted. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P4-08-01.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 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 ».