Abstract P2-18-02: Fractures in women with breast cancer receiving high-dose bisphosphonates to prevent breast cancer metastases as part of the SWOG S0307 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00127205)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Evidence from randomized trials, including a recent meta-analysis, suggests that adjuvant bisphosphonates can decrease recurrence and death in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Bisphosphonates (BP) have been included as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal breast cancer patients in multiple guidelines. SWOG S0307 compared efficacy of 3 BPs in early stage breast cancer, with no evidence of differences in efficacy on breast cancer outcomes by type of bisphosphonate, either in the overall analysis or subgroups. BPs are generally well tolerated, with a relatively low risk of serious adverse effects. Treatment for hormone sensitive breast cancer frequently includes treatment with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or ovarian function suppression (OFS), both of which can accelerate bone loss, decrease bone density, and increase fractures. In addition to decreasing breast cancer events, BPs have been shown to decrease fractures in breast cancer patients receiving AIs or OFS. However, concerns have been raised about the risk of atypical femur fractures (AFF), a rare subtype of fragility fractures, which appear to increase with longer BP use (3-100/100,000 person-years) (Shane 2013). This substudy evaluated all fractures occurring in patients enrolled on S0307. Methods: Patients with stage I-III breast cancer who were receiving adjuvant systemic therapy were randomized to receive 3 years of intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) 4 mg IV given every 4 weeks for the first six months, and then every 3 months for the following 2.5 years, oral clodronate (CLOD) 1,600 mg/day orally, or oral ibandronate (IBAN) 50 mg/day orally. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). On-treatment data collection forms specifically queried whether a fracture had occurred during the reporting period, the site of the fracture, and whether or not it was associated with trauma. Results: A total of 6,097 patients were randomized to S0307, with a median age of 53 years. Rates for overall fractures at 7.7 years were higher for CLOD (9.3%) compared to IBAN (7.4%) and ZA (7.1%) (p=0.02), with differences being mostly in the spine. Traumatic fracture differences were not significant (CLOD 2.0%, ZA 1.9%, IBAN 1.7%; p=0.83). Fragility fracture rates were 5.2% with ZA, 7.2% with CLOD, and 5.6% with IBAN. Ankle fractures were the most common fracture site at 2.8% overall. Leg fractures, including femur fractures, were relatively low with a rate of 1.5% overall and not different between agents. AFF were not specifically queried/determined. Conclusion: In S0307, BPs were used in higher doses than is recommended for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. There is limited data comparing the long-term effects across BP drugs used at these higher doses on the skeleton. In S0307, an overall fracture rate of 8% was seen in early stage breast cancer patients despite receiving BPs along with conventional systemic therapy. Fracture rates were slightly higher for CLOD than ZA and IBAN for fragility and overall fractures, but similar for traumatic fractures. This may reflect the potency of CLOD or the dosing schedule. Rates of femur fractures were relatively low in all arms without evidence of excess femur fractures. Funding: NIH/NCI CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, CA180868, CA180863, CA196175; BCRF, Komen, Berlex (Bayer), Roche/Genentech, Novartis. Citation Format: Rachel L (MD) Yung, Jieling Miao, Alexander HG Paterson, Mark Clemons, Elizabeth C Dees, James N Ingle, Carla I Falkson, William Barlow, Gabriel N Hortobagyi, Julie R Gralow. Fractures in women with breast cancer receiving high-dose bisphosphonates to prevent breast cancer metastases as part of the SWOG S0307 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00127205) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-18-02.
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 | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,001 |
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 ».