MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P2-14-02: NCIC CTG MA.27: Clinical Tolerability and Overall Survival of Racial and Ethnic Minority Women on Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy.

2011· article· en· W1966438134 on OpenAlexaff
Beverly Moy, LE Shepherd, J-AW Chapman, Maitre A Le, KA Gelmon, Catherine Elliott, JN Ingle, PE Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAromatase inhibitorBreast cancerPacific islandersAnastrozoleProportional hazards modelExemestaneCancerTamoxifenOncologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are standard adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. We previously reported that racial/ethnic minority women receiving an AI in NCIC CTG MA.17 experienced fewer hot flashes, fatigue, and arthralgias than Caucasians (Moy B et al. Ann Oncol 2006;17:1637). Here we examined whether race affected clinical outcomes in the MA.27 AI trial comparing exemestane (E) with anastrozole (A). Methods: Fisher's exact test was used to compare observed side effects (0 vs grades 1–5) between minority and Caucasian women. Adverse events (AE), including menopausal symptoms, were assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria of the National Cancer Institute (version 3.0). ITT univariate test of race effects on overall survival (OS) was determined with a stratified log-rank test, while multivariate testing was with stratified Cox regression. Results: Among 7312 for whom race was known, distribution was: Caucasian (n=6939; 95%); black (n=235; 3%); Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n=93); 1%; American Indian (n=39; 1%); and mixed race (n=6). Among women treated with E, minorities reported a significantly lower incidence of hot flashes (45% vs. 56%; p=0.003) and fatigue (34% vs. 46%; p=0.001) compared to Caucasians. Similarly with A, minority women reported significantly fewer hot flashes (47% vs. 58%; p=0.002) and lower cholesterol (12% vs. 18%; p=0.01); however, they reported more headaches than Caucasians (16% vs. 10%; p=0.01). Caucasian women were more likely to discontinue therapy due to AE or side effects (32% vs. 24%). There was a significant OS interaction (p=0.02) between race and treatment with minority women on E having fewer deaths than those on A. Caucasian women had HR of E to A of 0.98 (95% CI 0.81−1.20), p=0.85, while minorities had HR of E to A of 0.72 (95% CI 0.33−1.58), p=0.41. Conclusions: Minority women tolerated AIs better and were also more compliant than Caucasians, supporting our previous findings. A significant interaction between race and type of AI therapy for OS was seen, favoring exemestane in minority women. Replication of these findings in larger cohorts is necessary. Since race/ethnicity may serve as a surrogate for genetic differences, our findings suggest pharmacogenomic differences which require further research. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-02.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.348
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207