Clinical effectiveness of trastuzumab: early experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To assess the clinical effectiveness of trastuzumab among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients and compare the results to those reported in the two pivotal clinical trials and product monograph. Design. Retrospective chart review of all patients who had initiated trastuzumab monotherapy or combination therapy for MBC within the Alberta Cancer Board (ACB) from August 1998 to May 2001. Setting. Two public tertiary cancer centres in the Canadian province of Alberta. Patients. Of 90 patients reviewed within the ACB, 72 women were eligible for the study. Main outcome measures. The primary endpoints measured were time to treatment failure (TTF) and survival. Secondary end-points measured included adverse events and compliance with ACB guidelines for trastuzumab administration. Results. Among all 72 patients, median TTF was 7.6 months and median survival was 14.4 months. Trastuzumab combination therapy was associated with a significantly longer median TTF compared to trastuzumab monotherapy (P= 0.011). With respect to survival, no significant advantage was seen with combination therapy over monotherapy (P= 0.438). Infusion-related reactions were reported in 11.1% of our patients, while cardiotoxicity was reported in12.5%. Conclusions. Overall, we found that trastuzumab performs better in the clinical setting than it did in the pivotal trials with respect to TTF (2.5 vs. 2.4 months and 8.2 vs. 6.9 months), but not as well with respect to survival (10.0 vs. 13.0 months and 21.0 vs. 25.1 months). In comparison to the product monograph, we report a significantly lower incidence of infusion-related reactions and a slightly higher incidence of cardiotoxicity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".