Abstract PO4-04-09: Incidence, prevalence, risk factors, and impact of fatty liver disease in metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients treated with Endocrine Therapy and CDK 4/6 Inhibitor
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: In patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with increased recurrence, cardiovascular events, and non-cancer death. Endocrine therapy increases the risk of NAFLD. The impact of cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 inhibitors (CDKi) combined with endocrine therapy on NAFLD and prognostic association in metastatic breast canceris unknown. Here, we characterize the incidence, prevalence, risk factors, and treatment outcomes of NAFLD in women with metastatic HR+/HER2- BC. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced HR+/HER2- BC receiving first line endocrine and CDKi at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada between January 2018 – June 2022. Patients were excluded if they had liver disease, prior chemotherapy, or no access to CT scans. Demographic, treatment, toxicity, and survival data were extracted. Liver Attenuation Index (LAI) on contrast-enhanced portal venous phase CT scan was utilized.NAFLD was defined as LAI >25 HU. Univariable binary-logistic regression analysis wasused to assess independent predictive factors of NAFLD. Statistical significance was defined as p< 0.05. Quantitative significance was defined by the Burnand criteria. Time to treatment failure (TTF) was assessed using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: Of approximately 90 eligible patients, 40 are included in this analysis. Baseline demographics included median age 61 years, 72% post-menopausal, 58% de-novo metastatic disease, and 27% visceral disease. Of 40 patients, 28 (70%) had NAFLD at anytime (12 at baseline and 16 incident). Associations with NAFLD are shown in Table 1. Presence of NAFLD was associated quantitatively but not statistically with age > 65 (OR 2.6), post-menopausal status (OR 2.6), and inversely associated with prior chemotherapy (OR 0.27) and visceral disease (OR 0.38). Lack of NAFLD at any time was significantly associated with worse TTF (mean TTF 497 versus 1228 days, HR=4.28, 95% CI: 1.89-9.68, p< 0.001). Patients without NAFLD at baseline also had a worse TTF (mean 903 vs 1186 days) compared to those with it at baseline, but this difference was not statistically significance (HR=1.93, 95%CI: 0.77-4.83, p= 0.163). No significant differences were found in grade 3/4 adverse events. Patients who have presented NAFLD at any time received an average of 1.36 subsequent lines of therapy compared to 2.08 in those without. Discussion & Conclusion: This analysis demonstrated an association between presence of NAFLD and longer TTF. This may reflect reverse causation whereby longer exposure to ET and CDKi increases the observation of NAFLD or that these are distinct populations with different molecular pathways leading to differences in response to treatment and prognosis. It is noteworthy that the median time to develop NAFLD in the incident group was 339 days, and the group that never developed NAFLD was on treatment longer than this. Overexpression of CDK 4/6 pathway, could increase sensitivity and duration to treatment with CDKi but produce adverse metabolic changes of increased lipid synthesis, as described in pre-clinical models. If this hypothesis is confirmed, synergistically addressing these metabolic changes with physical exercise, dietary, or pharmacological interventions may improve these patients’ fitness for subsequent lines of therapy. Table 1 Citation Format: Diego Malon Gimenez, Consolacion Molto Valiente, Shopnil Prasla, Danielle Cuthbert, Abhenil Mittal, Faris Tamimi, Massimo Di Iorio, Meredith Li, Neha Pathak, Eitan Amir, Kartik Jhaveri, Michelle Nadler. Incidence, prevalence, risk factors, and impact of fatty liver disease in metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients treated with Endocrine Therapy and CDK 4/6 Inhibitor [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 PO4-04-09.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».