MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P1-15-06: The impact of musculoskeletal toxicity on adherence to endocrine therapy in women with early stage breast cancer– observations in a non-trial setting

2012· article· en· W2033024271 on OpenAlexaffabout
S Dent, MM Campbell, FL Crawley, MJ Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExemestaneLetrozoleTamoxifenAnastrozoleDiscontinuationBreast cancerInternal medicineCancerStage (stratigraphy)Metastatic breast cancerAromatase inhibitorGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Aromatase inhibitor (AI) use is standard of care in the treatment of postmenopausal (PM) women with early stage breast cancer (EBC). Approximately 35% of patients (pts) discontinue their initially prescribed AI due to toxicity, the most commonly reported reason being musculoskeletal toxicity (MSKT). We report on the discontinuation rates of AI therapy based on MSKT in PM women with EBC treated at a tertiary care cancer centre. Methods: PM women with hormone receptor positive EBC treated with endocrine therapy (ET) that included an AI (upfront or after tamoxifen) at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center between 01/99 and 02/06. Data included: demographics, type of ET, duration of treatment, incidence of patient-reported MSKT and treatment of MSKT. Comparisons between ETs were analyzed using Chi-square and Fischer's t-tests. Results: A total of 626 pts, median 59 years (r: 30–92), median follow-up 98 months, with stage: I (196 pts; 31%), II (341 pts; 54%) or III (89 pts; 14%s) EBC. Treatment strategies included: AI(s) only (251 pts; 40%); tamoxifen (TAM) followed by AI(s) (323 pts; 51.6%); AI(s) followed by TAM (16 pts; 2.6%); TAM-AI(s)-TAM (24 pts; 3.8%) and unknown (12 pts). Patient-reported MSKT was experienced by significantly more women treated with AIs than TAM (64% vs 36%, p < 0.0001). Women on exemestane experienced significantly less MSKT (47%) compared to anastrozole (64%; p = 0.011) or letrozole (68% p = 0.003). Mean time to appearance of patient-reported MSKT was 20 months (23 for anastrozole; 9 for exemestane; 21 for letrozole; 23 for TAM). Longer duration of AI use did not significantly correlate with higher risk of MSKT (p = 0.65). Significantly more pts discontinued ET due to MSKT from AIs (106/469; 22%) than TAM (21/141; 14%) (P < 0.0001); and more pts stopped letrozole due to MSKT (40/149; 27%) than the other two AIs (P < 0.0001). Treatment strategies for MSKT (n = 359 cases) included: discontinuation of AI (55; 15%), switching AI (19; 5%), treatment with medication (e.g. NSAIDs, Acetaminophen, Cox 2 inhibitors, narcotics) (75; 21%), physiotherapy and medication (2; 0.6%), and no treatment (208; 58%). Treatment strategies for MSKT did not differ significantly between ETs. Women taking anastrozole received more acetaminophen and codeine (p = 0.02 vs TAM; 0.041 vs exemestane; 0.015 vs letrozole) compared to other AI's. MSKT treatment increased adherence from 43–46% with TAM (p = 0.76); 60–72% with anastrozole (p = 0.17); 33–80% with exemestane (p < 0.0001); but did not affect adherence with letrozole (52%; p = 1.0). Conclusions: This large cohort study reports similar MSKT rates with AI therapy as reported in the literature. AIs have higher incidence of self-reported MSKTs (64%) compared to TAM (36%). Patients discontinued treatment due to MSKT significantly more with AI (22%) than TAM (14%) but adherence to AI therapy increased when treated for MSKT. These encouraging results reflect the real life experience of women exposed to ET. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-15-06.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→