Improved Survival, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Survival in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Efaproxiral (Efaproxyn) Plus Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether efaproxiral, an allosteric modifier of hemoglobin, improves quality of life and quality of survival in patients with primary breast cancer and brain metastases when used as an adjunct to whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). METHODS: Patients with brain metastases from breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive WBRT and either efaproxiral or no efaproxiral. The primary endpoint for this analysis was quality of life and quality-adjusted survival. Quality of life was assessed prior to initiation of WBRT and periodically in follow-up using the Spitzer Quality of Life Index (SQLI). RESULTS: A subgroup of 106 eligible breast cancer patients with baseline SQLI were randomized into this study and represent the target population discussed in this report. Treatment, age, and SQLI were significant predictors of survival. The addition of efaproxiral to WBRT reduced the death rate by 46% (P = 0.0086). Quality of life was improved in the WBRT + efaproxiral arm compared with the WBRT alone arm (P = 0.019). Quality-adjusted survival was statistically significantly improved by the addition of efaproxiral to WBRT (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Survival, quality of life, and quality-adjusted survival were all improved in breast cancer patients with brain metastases receiving efaproxiral and WBRT compared with those receiving WBRT alone.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".