Population-based Analysis of Treatment and Survival in Women Presenting With Brain Metastasis at Initial Breast Cancer Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Brain metastasis at initial breast cancer diagnosis is rare. This study aims to evaluate the clinical characteristics of these patients and identify prognostic and treatment factors associated with improved survival. METHODS: Subjects were 35 women referred from 1996 to 2005 with newly diagnosed breast cancer with synchronous brain metastasis. Overall survival (OS) and brain progression-free survival were examined using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared between subgroups with different clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics using log-rank tests. RESULTS: Median age was 65 years. Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) alone was used in 25 patients, surgical resection and postoperative WBRT in 5 patients, and no or unknown treatment in 5 patients. Patients who underwent cranial resection were more likely to have solitary brain metastasis (P=0.003) and no visceral involvement (P=0.006). Overall, median OS was 6.8 months and median brain progression-free survival was 6.5 months (range, 0.7 to 54 mo). Median OS were 15 months with surgery and postoperative WBRT, 5 months with WBRT alone, and 3 months with no brain treatment. Longer OS was observed with age below 65 years versus 65 years and above (11 vs. 5 mo, P=0.046), 0 to 1 versus ≥2 sites of extracranial metastasis (10 vs. 3 mo, P=0.047), and diagnosis from 2001 to 2005 versus 1996 to 2000 (10 vs. 3 mo, P=0.018). A trend toward improved OS was observed in patients with no visceral involvement (11 vs. 4 mo, P=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: In this unique cohort presenting with breast cancer and synchronous brain metastasis, longer survival were observed with young age, limited extracranial metastasis, and no visceral disease. These characteristics may be used to select candidates for more aggressive treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".