The Risk of Amenorrhea Is Related to Chemotherapy-Induced Leucopenia in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Epirubicin and Taxane Based Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea (CIA) is common in young breast cancer patients. The incidence of CIA associated with regimens involving epirubicin and taxane was not well known. Furthermore, previous studies suggested leucopenia and amenorrhea may reflect inter-individual variations in pharmacokinetics. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between leucopenia after first cycle of chemotherapy and CIA in young breast cancer patients receiving epirubicin and taxane based chemotherapy. Furthermore, the incidence of CIA was also assessed. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Between October 2008 and March 2010, 186 consecutive premenopausal patients, treated with epirubicin and taxane based chemotherapy, were recruited. Information about CIA was collected by telephone and out-patient clinic. Of these 186 patients, data from 165 patients were included and analyzed. Of all 165 patients, CIA occurred in 72 patients (43.64%). In multivariate analysis, age older than 40 y (OR: 16.10, 95% CI: 6.34-40.88, P<0.001) and previous childbearing (OR: 3.17, 95% CI: 1.06-9.47, P = 0.038) were significantly associated with probability of CIA. Compared to patients treated without taxane, patients treated with taxane-contained regimens did not have a significantly higher rate of CIA (P>0.05). The rate of CIA in leucopenia group (52.56%) was significantly higher than that in normal leukocyte group (34.62%) (P = 0.024). In patients treated with a FEC regimen (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil), the rate of CIA in leucopenia group (59.57%) was significantly higher than that in normal leukocyte group (36.84%) (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Age at diagnosis and previous childbearing were both found to significantly increase the risk of CIA, whereas additional taxane was not associated with increased rate of CIA. Importantly, leucopenia after first cycle of chemotherapy was associated with increased risk of CIA, which suggested that leucopenia may be an early predictor of chemotherapy-induced infertility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".