MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4379345936 · doi:10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.10503

Second primary breast cancer in young breast cancer survivors.

2023· article· en· W4379345936 sur OpenAlex
Kristen D. Brantley, Shoshana M. Rosenberg, Laura C. Collins, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Rulla M. Tamimi, Lidia Schapira, Virginia F. Borges, Ellen Warner, Steven E. Come, Gregory J. Kirkner, Craig Snow, Ann H. Partridge

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesBreast Cancer Research Foundation
Mots-clésMedicineBreast cancerCancerProportional hazards modelInternal medicineOncologyGenetic testingProspective cohort studyCohortQuartileCancer registryGynecologyConfidence interval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

10503 Background: Prior data suggests that the risk of second primary breast cancer (SPBC) is higher among women diagnosed with primary breast cancer (BC) before age 40. There is evidence that risk differs by primary tumor characteristics, cancer treatments, and genetic predisposition. However, studies investigating risk of SPBC by clinical risk factors are often limited by low numbers of young women and lack of complete patient data, particularly regarding germline genetic risk. Methods: Using the Young Women’s BC Study (YWS), a prospective cohort of 1,302 women ≤40 years diagnosed with BC from 2006-2016, we sought to compare clinical and treatment characteristics among women who developed an SPBC vs. those who did not. The analytic cohort included women diagnosed with Stage 0-III BC who did not undergo bilateral mastectomy (N = 685). Demographics, genetic testing and results, clinical events, and treatment data were collected through self-report on baseline and follow-up surveys (every 6 months for 3 years, then annually). Detailed tumor and treatment information, confirmation of genetic testing results, and new and recurrent cancer events were obtained through regular and triggered medical record review. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine associations of age, race, genetic testing results, hormone receptor status, stage, and grade of primary tumor, and cancer treatments with SPBC. Participants were censored at the time of local recurrence, metastasis, death, or loss of follow-up. Results: At a median follow-up time of 9.9 years [inter-quartile range (IQR) = 6.6-12.0 y], 17 patients developed an SPBC (2.5%), in whom 3 occurred in the ipsilateral breast after lumpectomy as primary BC surgery. Median time from primary BC diagnosis to SPBC diagnosis was 4.2 years (IQR = 3.3-5.6 y). Compared to those who did not develop an SPBC, a greater percentage of women who developed an SPBC had in situ disease as their primary BC (24% v. 6%) and were of Ashkenazi descent (12% v. 5%). In the 577 women who had had genetic testing, 544 (94%) were non-carriers of pathogenic variants. Risk of SPBC was 2.2% (N = 12) in non-carriers and 9.1% (N = 3) in the 33 carriers. In Cox univariate analyses, carriers had a 4.1 times higher risk of SPBC compared to non-carriers (HR = 4.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.67-14.66, p = 0.03), and primary diagnosis with in situ BC was associated with a 5-fold increased risk of SPBC (HR = 5.02, 95% CI = 1.63-15.41, p = 0.005). Both factors remained strongly associated with SPBC when tested together in a multivariate model. Conclusions: This prospective study demonstrated a low risk of SPBC in the first 10 years after diagnosis of early BC in young women who are not germline pathogenic variant carriers. The finding that risk of SPBC was higher after in situ primary BC at a young age warrants further investigation. These findings have important implications for the treatment and follow-up care of young women with BC.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,238
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,078
Tête enseignante GPT0,443
Écart entre enseignants0,365 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle