MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P5-10-09: Comparison of the (Non-)Hematological Toxicity and Compliance of Different Anthracycline Containing Regimen with the Standard AC/EC in Elderly Patients with Primary Breast Cancer

2010· article· en· W1986429657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mattea Linder, G von Minckwitz, Nadia Harbeck, W Janni, Sherko Kümmel, M. Kaufmann, Dirk Elling, Valentina Nekljudova, Sibylle Loibl

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpirubicinAnthracyclineMedicineDocetaxelRegimenTaxaneCyclophosphamideDoxorubicinInternal medicineBreast cancerChemotherapyPaclitaxelGastroenterologyPharmacologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: There is a paucity on toxicity (tox) data in elderly patients (pts) above 65 years (yrs) treated with anthracycline containing standard chemotherapy (ct) for primary breast cancer. We investigated the tox of standard anthracycline based regimen (AC/EC) and compared those with alternatives like dose-dense monotherapies and combinations (Edd; ADdd), intensified combinations (Canadian FEC) and taxane/anthracycline combinations (TAC) in various age groups. Patients and methods: In this pooled analysis, individual pts data from 4 German randomized trials (n= 4775) were evaluated regarding tox and compliance. Docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (75/500/500mg/m2) 3qw (A=TAC), 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin (500/60mg/m2) iv d1+8 followed by cyclophosphamide (75mg/m2) po d1-14 q4w (B=cFEC), doxorubicin (epirubicin)/cyclophosphamide (60(90)/600mg/m2) q3w followed by docetaxel (100mg/m2) or paclitaxel (175mg/m2) q3w (C= AC/EC-D/p), doxorubicin/docetaxel (50/75mg/m2) q2w (D= AD dose dense(dd)) and epirubicin-paclitaxel q2w (120/175 mg/m2) (E= sequence dd) were given. Only the anthracycline containing cycles were investigated. A descriptive analysis was performed on compliance and (non-) hematological tox. Pts were grouped according to their age: < 60yrs [1], 60-64 yrs [2] and >64yrs [3]. Primary G-CSF support was given in A, D, E. Results: 73.6% were <60 yrs, 15.8% were 60-64 and 10.6% were > 64. A total of 22,306 anthracycline containing cycles were administered, of those 74.6% were given to [1], 15.2% to [2] and 10.0 % to [3]. 41.6% of the pts received TAC; 11.5% cFEC; 29.2% AC/EC-D/P; 8.2% ADoc dd and 9.5% Edd-Pdd. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) did not significantly differ between the 3 age groups (overall A:10.0%; B:2.9%; C:1.0%; D:4.7%) apart from E with 0.9% ([1]0%; [2]6.4%; [3]0% P<0.001). FN in pts >64 was lower in B (2.4%) than in A (14.4%) and D (5.1%). Diarrhea grade 3+4 increased with age to 8.2% for [3] under TAC (p= 0.01) and mucositis grade 3+4 under E to 12% for >64 (P<0.001). Conclusion: In total, range and intensity of tox increased with age. Neutropenia did significantly increase with age in standard regimen but not in the dd groups Rate of dose reduction increased with age in A ([1] 6.1%; [2]6.5%; [3] 11.5; p=0.02) and B ([1]15.7%; [2]26.9%; [3]39.3%; p< 0.001). Similar significant results were observed for discontinuations and hospitalizations in A, B, D. Neutropenia grade 3+4 in [3] was 77% with cFEC, vs 55%with TAC (with primary G-CSF). Leucopenia Grade 3+4 in % (D, E). The severity of the non-hematotox differed between age groups and regimen. Monotherapies and sequential regimen seem more favorable in elderly pts. cFEC without G-CSF is not an option in pts >64. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-10-09.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.362 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology→French-language works237,207→