Chemotherapy of breast cancer: are the taxanes going to change the natural history of breast cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the novel chemotherapeutic drugs introduced in the last decade, taxanes have emerged as the most powerful compounds and results available to date suggest that they will be remembered in the future as the breast cancer chemotherapy of the 1990s. The two taxanes (paclitaxel, Taxol, Bristol-Myers Squibb and docetaxel, Taxotere, Rhône-Poulenc Rorer) share some characteristics, but are also significantly different both in preclinical profile and, most importantly, in clinical characteristics. The main clinical differences are related to their different efficacy-toxicity ratio in relation to dose and schedule; the differing integrability of paclitaxel and docetaxel in anthracycline-taxane containing regimens, secondary to major differences in pharmacokinetic interactions between each taxane and the anthracyclines, and; the potential differences in level of synergism between each taxane and herceptin (HeR2Neu antibody/trastuzumab, Genentech/Roche). In clinical practice, the taxanes are now standard therapy in metastatic breast cancer after prior chemotherapy, in particular anthracyclines, has failed. Their role in combination with anthracyclines in first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer is emerging and sheds new light on the potential role of taxanes in the adjuvant setting. However, the impact of taxanes on the natural history of breast cancer is yet to be defined, despite the trend of results suggesting that these agents have the potential for significant improvements in advanced and, most importantly, adjuvant therapy of breast cancer. The results of all completed or ongoing Phase III trials in first-line metastatic and the adjuvant setting will help determine if taxanes will further improve the outcome of breast cancer or not.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".