MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P5-18-14: Cardiac monitoring during adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for breast cancer

2012· article· en· W1992885500 on OpenAlexaffabout
D. C. K. Ng, Ilia Ferrusi, Hoa Khong, C. Earle, Maureen Trudeau, Deborah Marshall, N. B. Leighl

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrastuzumabBreast cancerInternal medicineAsymptomaticCardiotoxicityCancerCardiomyopathyOncologyCardiologyHeart failureToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Adjuvant trastuzumab improves survival in HER2+ breast cancer. Cardiac toxicity is an important potential side effect. We report real world practice patterns in cardiac monitoring and outcomes during adjuvant trastuzumab therapy in Ontario. Methods: A cohort of female patients diagnosed with early breast cancer from Jan 1, 2006 to Dec 31, 2007 and who received trastuzumab was identified retrospectively through linkage of provincial administrative and registry databases. Demographic, pathology, treatment, hospital admissions, claims for cardiac tests (MUGA or echo), and outcomes were extracted for individuals. Pre-existing cardiac disease (CHF, MI, angina, valve disorder, arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy) and risk factors (diabetes, lipid disorder, hypertension) were classified using ICD-10 codes. Appropriate cardiac monitoring definitions were based on published trials and expert opinion. Symptomatic cardiac toxicity was defined as a physician claim or hospital admission with a cardiac diagnosis occurring within 2 years of the first trastuzumab dose. Asymptomatic cardiac toxicity was defined as temporary or permanent cessation of trastuzumab with additional cardiac tests. Patients were categorized into treatment groups: G1 received at least 17 doses (standard 3-weekly administration for 51 weeks) with no complications; G2 stopped early for non-cardiac reasons (no additional cardiac tests); G3 had symptomatic or asymptomatic cardiac toxicity. Analyses of patient, treatment and system factors possibly affecting cardiac monitoring and toxicity were performed. Results: 1,357 patients diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2006–7 received trastuzumab (median = 18 doses). 77% received anthracyclines; 4.1% had at least 1 cardiac risk factor. The majority (91%) had a baseline cardiac test, including 96% of those with cardiac risks. Geographic region was associated with baseline testing, but multivariable analysis of other factors including urbanicity, left lateral radiation, age, income, and anthracycline use, did not explain the variation in baseline testing patterns. The majority, 81%, had ≥3 cardiac tests, 62.2% had ≥4. Cardiac monitoring was deemed appropriate in 80.7% of patients without cardiac events, and 73.4% in those with symptomatic or asymptomatic cardiac events. Multivariable analysis revealed duration of trastuzumab to be the most significant factor associated with appropriateness of cardiac monitoring (G1 - OR 0.62, p = 0.018, 95% CI 0.45–0.92; G3 - OR 4.56, p < 0.001, 95% CI 2.47–8.42). 297 patients (22%) experienced symptomatic (7%) or asymptomatic (15%) cardiac toxicity. Duration of trastuzumab (<17 doses; OR 6.47, p < 0.001, 95% CI 4.79–8.75) was associated with cardiac toxicity. Conclusions: The majority of early breast cancer patients that received adjuvant trastuzumab in Ontario between 2006–7 had cardiac monitoring consistent with clinical trials. Cardiac toxicity in this real world population, as defined by our database analysis, was unexpectedly higher than reported in trials. Shorter duration of trastuzumab was associated with cardiac toxicity, likely reflecting the practice of stopping trastuzumab in the presence of cardiac events. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-18-14.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→