MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541964738 · doi:10.1002/cncr.10744

Concurrent cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5‐fluorouracil chemotherapy and radiotherapy for breast carcinoma

2002· article· en· W1541964738 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Isaac, Tony Panzarella, Anthea Lau, Catherine Mayers, Peter Kirkbride, Ian F. Tannock, Katherine A. Vallis

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCyclophosphamideFluorouracilBreast cancerRadiation therapyChemotherapyMethotrexateMastectomyBreast carcinomaInternal medicineAdverse effectSurgeryIncidence (geometry)OncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to assess the toxicity of concurrent adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) for early breast carcinoma. METHODS: In the current study, the authors reviewed the records of 680 consecutive breast carcinoma patients who received adjuvant CMF at the Princess Margaret Hospital between 1980-1990. Surgery was comprised of mastectomy in 64% of patients, breast conservation in 35% of patients, and was unknown in 1% of patients. Two hundred two patients received concurrent CMF/RT that was defined as an overlap in CMF and RT administration of at least 21 days. Forty-seven patients received sequential CMF/RT (defined as no overlap or an overlap of < 7 days in CMF and RT administration). Other patients received CMF alone. Adverse effects of RT were graded retrospectively using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) system. Reasons for interruption or failure to complete RT were recorded. The magnitude of chemotherapy dose reductions and delays also were noted. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 44 years (range, 26-68 years) and 88% of the patients had lymph node-positive disease. RT was interrupted or discontinued due to side effects in 4% of patients (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.7-7.7%) and 0% (95% CI, 0-7.6%), respectively, of the concurrent and sequential groups (P = 0.36). The incidence of Grade 3 or Grade 4 RT toxicity was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.3-4.3%) and 2.1% (95% CI, 0.1-11.3%), respectively, for the concurrent and sequential groups (P = 0.57). The median relative dose intensity of chemotherapy for patients receiving concurrent CMF/RT, sequential CMF/RT, and CMF alone was 0.87, 0.84, and 0.85, respectively (P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrate that the concurrent administration of CMF and RT is associated with a low risk of serious toxicity and is an acceptable adjuvant regimen for patients with breast carcinoma.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207