MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4396587123 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-po5-18-02

Abstract PO5-18-02: A Population-Based Analysis of the Impact of Omission of Anthracyclines in the Neoadjuvant Setting on the Risk of Mortality

2024· article· en· W4396587123 sur OpenAlexaff
Danilo Giffoni M. M. Mata, Rinku Sutradhar, Matthew Castelo, Lena Nguyen, Danielle Rodin, Ezra Hahn, Omolara Fatiregun, Cindy Fong, Sabina Trebinjac, Andrea Eisen, Lawrence Paszat, Katarzyna J. Jerzak, Eileen Rakovitch

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineOncologyInternal medicineNeoadjuvant therapyPopulationCancerBreast cancerEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Most patients with high-risk non-metastatic breast cancer are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which includes the administration of anthracyclines. The omission of anthracyclines was shown to be associated with excellent outcomes in selected patients. However, the extent to which anthracyclines are omitted among a population of women treated with NAC and its impact on mortality remain unclear. Objective To investigate the extent to which anthracyclines are omitted among a population of patients with invasive breast cancer treated with NAC and to examine the impact of non-anthracycline NAC on risks of breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Methods We performed a retrospective population-based cohort analysis using patient-level health administrative data. The cohort includes women aged ≥18 years with stage I – III invasive breast cancer diagnosed between January 2012 and December 2020, treated with NAC and surgery. Patients were excluded if they received < 50% of the planned chemotherapy regimen, had bilateral breast cancer and/or a previous malignancy. The exposure of interest was anthracycline versus non-anthracycline NAC regimen. The primary and secondary endpoints were breast cancer-specific mortality and overall (all-cause) mortality. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted by propensity score, and clinical/pathologic variables including a measure of comorbidity was performed to examine impact of omission of anthracyclines on outcomes. Cumulative incidence curves were generated to calculate the 5-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer and all-cause mortality for the whole cohort and in subset analyses, stratified by stage and receptor subtype. Results The cohort includes 4,180 women. Median follow was 62 months (IQR 44-85) and median age was 51 years (IQR 43-60). Most patients had low co-morbidities (96.0%), Stage II (44.1%) or Stage III (47.7%) disease, underwent mastectomy (72.6%), had axillary node dissection (64.4%) and received post-operative radiotherapy (88.8%). 279 (6.7%) individuals were treated with a non-anthracycline NAC and 3,901 (93.3 %) received an anthracycline NAC. Women who received non-anthracycline NAC were older (median 62 years vs. 50 years; p< 0.001), more likely to have stage I-II disease (77.0% vs. 51.3%; p< 0.001), and more likely to have triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (14.0% vs. 24.4%; p< 0.001) than those who received anthracyclines.On propensity adjusted multivariable analysis, factors associated with an increased risk of BC mortality include Stage III (HR 9.3, 95%CI 4.5 - 19.2, p< 0.0001) or stage II at presentation (HR 2.57 95% CI 1.24, 5.34, p=.01) (ref: stage I) or triple negative subtype (HR 3.7 95% CI 3.03, 4.51, p< .0001) (ref: hormone positive/HER2-). There was no significant difference in the relative risks of BC death (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.27) or all-cause mortality (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60-1.21) for patients selected for treatment without anthracyclines compared to those treated with anthracyclines.Overall, among individuals selected for treatment without or with anthracycline NAC there was no significant difference in the 5-year cumulative incidence of BC (15.4% vs 10.5%, P=.05) or all-cause mortality (16.4% vs 11.9%, P=.07). However, the 5-year cumulative incidence of BC specific death (31.8% vs 16.5%, p=.03) and 5-year cumulative incidence of all-cause death (31.8% vs. 18.2%, p=.06) was higher among 420 women with HER2+ Stage III breast cancer who received non-anthracycline versus anthracycline-based chemotherapy. No difference was observed for other subgroups. Conclusions The omission of anthracyclines in NAC for individuals with stage III HER2+ breast cancer was associated with higher cumulative risks of breast cancer and all-cause mortality but no difference was observed for other subgroups. Further research is warranted to better understand in whom anthracyclines can be safely omitted. Citation Format: Danilo Giffoni M. M. Mata, Rinku Sutradhar, Matthew Castelo, Lena Nguyen, Danielle Rodin, Ezra Hahn, Omolara Fatiregun, Cindy Fong, Sabina Trebinjac, Andrea Eisen, Lawrence Paszat, Katarzyna Jerzak, Eileen Rakovitch. A Population-Based Analysis of the Impact of Omission of Anthracyclines in the Neoadjuvant Setting on the Risk of Mortality [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-18-02.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,014

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,111
Tête enseignante GPT0,483
Écart entre enseignants0,372 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer ResearchMême sujetBreast Implant and ReconstructionTravaux en français237 207