Evaluating the Efficacy of Current Clinical Practice of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Postmenopausal Women with Early-Stage, Estrogen or Progesterone Receptor–Positive, One-To-Three Positive Axillary Lymph Node, Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the benefit of the current clinical practice of adjuvant chemotherapy for postmenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive (er/pr+), one-to-three positive axillary lymph node (1-3 ln+), breast cancer (esbc). METHODS: Using the Manitoba Cancer Registry, we identified all postmenopausal women diagnosed with er/pr+ 1-3 ln+ esbc during the periods 1995-1997, 2000-2002, and 2003-2005 (n = 156, 161, and 171 respectively). Treatment data were obtained from the Manitoba Cancer Registry and by linkage with Manitoba administrative databases. Seven-year survival data were available for the 1995-1997 and 2000-2002 populations. Using Cox regression, we assessed the independent effect of the clinical practice of adjuvant chemotherapy on disease-free (dfs) and overall survival (os). RESULTS: Clinical breast cancer treatments did not differ significantly between the 2000-2002 and 2003-2005 populations. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 103 patients in the 2000-2002 population (64%) and in 44 patients in the 1995-1997 population [28.2%; mean difference: 36%; 95% confidence interval (ci): 31% to 40%; p < 0.0001]. Compared with 1995-1997, 2000-2002 was not significantly associated with an incremental dfs benefit for patients over a period of 7 years (2000-2002 vs. 1995-1997; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% ci: 0.64 to 1.4). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment standard of adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to endocrine therapy may not be effective for all women with er/pr+ 1-3 ln+ esbc. There could be a subgroup of those women who do not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy as expected and who are therefore being overtreated. Further studies with a larger sample size are warranted to confirm our results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".