MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2024506184 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs-3158

Cardiac toxicity and adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer – the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario experience.

2009· article· en· W2024506184 on OpenAlexaffabout
JA Flemming, Wilma Hopman, Yolanda Madarnas

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTaxaneTrastuzumabAnthracyclineInternal medicineBreast cancerOncologyCardiotoxicityPopulationCancerAdjuvantRadiation therapyDocetaxelSurgeryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract #3158 Background: In May 2005 several large randomized trials reported a significant improvement in DFS following the addition of trastuzumab (T) to adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in early stage breast cancer (BC) such that in the summer of 2005 adjuvant T became standard of care for patients (pts) whose tumors over-expressed her2. Cardiotoxicity had been reported as the main toxicity suffered by pts exposed to T. As the generalizability of clinical trial results to the 'real world' is under increasing scrutiny from the oncology community, we undertook this study to identify and follow the population of interest and to characterize cardiac toxicity related to adjuvant T as practice changed. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of electronic and paper records of all pts prescribed adjuvant T for early stage BC at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario from June 2005 through January 2007; collecting demographic, disease-related, and treatment-related variables, along with serial left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measurements for each pt. Results: 54 pts prescribed adjuvant T were identified in this time period, nearly half of which were still on T at the time of this analysis. Mean age was 54.4 ± 9.5 years, 38.9% had N0 disease, and 40.7% had left sided tumors, with 42.6% being ER+ and 50% being PR+. Most pts received anthracycline based CT (53.7%) and 39% received an anthracycline/taxane combination. T was concurrently with CT in 14.8% of pts, concurrently with radiotherapy in 33.3% and sequentially in the remainder. T was initiated at a mean of 91.2 days from completion of chemotherapy (range 19-365). Our local protocol mandated LVEF assessments at baseline pre CT, upon completion of CT and/or prior to initiation of T for all pts, and while on T all pts underwent LVEF assessments at 12, 24, 36, 48 and 52 weeks, and in response to any symptoms suggesting cardiac dysfunction. Mean LVEF pre CT and post CT was 64% and 62% respectively. We saw no change in LVEF post CT and pre T. We noted a significant decline in LVEF after 12 weeks on T, from 60.5 ± 6.2% to 56.5 ± 9.5% respectively (p = 0.003), with LVEF values remaining stable thereafter. However, at the time of this analysis only approximately half the pts had completed the full year of therapy. Twelve pts (22.2%) interrupted their T therapy due to a drop in LVEF of >10%, only one pt experienced symptomatic cardiotoxicity requiring treatment. Of these twelve, only two pts restarted T at a later date. Follow-up of those patients still on trastuzumab is ongoing. Discussion: Adjuvant trastuzumab in general clinical practice is associated with significant decreases in LVEF that are associated with premature discontinuation of therapy. A better understanding of factors associated with LVEF decline and the trends in LVEF over time may allow for targeted interventions for pts at risk. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 3158.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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