A Phase III Study of High-Dose Intensification Without Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells Support for Patients With High-Risk Primary Breast Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with more than nine ipsilateral lymph node involvement or inflammatory breast cancer have a 5-year survival rate of approximately 50%. We studied the efficacy of high-dose intensification, comparing it with the standard dose chemotherapy for patients with high-risk primary breast cancer. Patients with inflammatory breast cancer or more than nine ipsilateral lymph node involvement without evidence of distant metastasis were randomized to receive either standard dose 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) every 3 weeks for nine courses (control) or six courses of FAC followed by two courses of cyclophosphamide (5.25 g/m2), etoposide (1,500 mg/m2), and cisplatin (165 mg/m2) (HDCVP). The study was terminated in 1998 because of slow accrual of patients. Forty-six patients were entered in the study. At 4 years, the overall survival was 72.8% (SE 11.9%) and 61.7% (SE 12.4%), and disease-free survival were 45.5% (SE 12.3%) and 33.7% (SE 11.9%) for the control and HDCVP groups, respectively (p = 0.757 and 0.720). With the small number of patients in our study, a small overall survival benefit of high-dose intensification compared with the standard therapy cannot be excluded. However, any substantial benefit is unlikely.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".