Outcomes in patients with primary breast cancer and a subsequent diagnosis of endometrial cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study compared tumor characteristics and survival in women with breast cancer who subsequently developed endometrial cancer with or without a history of tamoxifen use. METHODS: The British Columbia Cancer Agency registry identified 163 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1989-1999 who received a subsequent diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Of these, 55% (n = 90) had a history of tamoxifen use. Outcomes analyzed were breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), endometrial cancer-specific survival (ECSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 9.4 years. Distributions of age, menopausal status, body mass index, and comorbidities were similar in the tamoxifen-treated and nontamoxifen cohorts. Proportions of aggressive endometrial cancer subtypes including papillary serous, clear cell, and mixed mullerian tumors were higher in the tamoxifen cohort (28% vs14%, P = .03). Distributions of endometrial cancer grade and stage were similar in the 2 groups (P > .05). Hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy were the primary treatments for endometrial cancer in 99% of patients, with comparable pelvic control rates in the tamoxifen and nontamoxifen groups. At 10 years, patients in the tamoxifen group experienced lower BCSS compared with the nontamoxifen group (89% vs 97%, P = .02). No significant differences in ECSS and OS were observed between the 2 groups (ECSS 82% and 82%, P = .85; and OS 69% v. 66%, P = .85). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with breast cancer who developed a subsequent endometrial cancer, tamoxifen-treated patients had higher proportions of aggressive endometrial cancer subtypes, but almost all cases were amenable to surgery, thus resulting in similar endometrial cancer control and survival when compared with nontamoxifen treated patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".