Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate for the treatment of bone metastases in breast carcinoma patients with at least one osteolytic lesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment with zoledronic acid (Zol) was compared with a dose of 90 mg of pamidronate (Pam) in breast carcinoma (BC) patients with at least 1 osteolytic lesion based on data from a Phase III, randomized trial. METHODS: Overall, 1130 patients with breast carcinoma who had all types of bone metastases (osteolytic, mixed, or osteoblastic by radiology) were randomized to receive treatment with either 4 mg of Zol or 8 mg of Zol as a 15-minute infusion or 90 mg of Pam as a 2-hour infusion every 3-4 weeks for 12 months. A skeletal-related event (SRE) was defined as a pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, radiotherapy, or surgery to bone. RESULTS: Among all patients with BC, the proportion of those who had an SRE (primary endpoint) was comparable between treatment groups (43% of patients who received 4 mg of Zol vs. 45% of patients who received Pam). Among patients who had breast carcinoma with at least 1 osteolytic lesion (n = 528 patients), the proportion with an SRE was lower in the 4-mg Zol group compared with the Pam group (48% vs. 58%), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.058). The time to first SRE was significantly longer in the 4-mg Zol group compared with the Pam group (median, 310 vs. 174 days; P = 0.013). Moreover, multiple-event analysis demonstrated significant further reductions in the risk of developing SREs over the reduction achieved with Pam (30% in the osteolytic subset [P = 0.010] and 20% for all patients with BC [P = 0.037]). CONCLUSIONS: The current data indicate that treatment with 4 mg of Zol was more effective than 90 mg of Pam in reducing skeletal complications in a subset of patients with breast carcinoma who had at least 1 osteolytic lesion at study entry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".