MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P4-16-14: Salvage Radiotherapy and Cisplatin for Triple Negative Breast Cancer: A Multi-Centre Study

2012· article· en· W2068717542 on OpenAlexaff
JW Lee, Muriel Brackstone, Shipra Gandhi, Salinas C Arce, R. Dinniwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCancer Care OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSalvage therapyTriple-negative breast cancerRadiation therapyBreast cancerCancerOncologyMastectomyInternal medicineChemotherapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Rationale: Patients with locally advanced, triple negative(TN) breast cancer may undergo neo-adjuvant chemotherapy(NAC) prior to definitive surgery. For tumours that demonstrate progression during NAC or rapid recurrence, the optimal second-line or ‘salvage’ therapy is not well defined. Purpose: To examine the efficacy and toxicity of salvage radiotherapy (XRT) and Cisplatin(CDDP) in patients with locally advanced, triple-negative breast cancer. Methods: A retrospective review of LABC databases was performed at 3 quaternary cancer centres to identify patients with TN disease who had salvage XRT +/− CDDP. (Local research ethics board approval was obtained at each centre independently.) Patient demographics, initial staging information and primary pathology reports were reviewed to confirm eligibility. Details of NAC and salvage treatments were collected. Clinical tumour response was determined by physical assessments and imaging and categorized retrospectively using standardized definitions of response and progression. Pathological response was evaluated in all cases if available. Toxicity, loco-regional control, distant disease progression and survival were assessed up to the last available follow-up and reported. Patients who underwent previous XRT were excluded. Results: 12 patients who underwent salvage treatment were identified. All patients had TN, LABC, including 10 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma; 1 metaplastic carcinoma; 1 poorly differentiated carcinoma with neuroendocrine features. The most common indications for salvage treatment were tumour progression during NAC (n = 6) and loco-regional recurrence shortly after NAC and mastectomy (n = 3). The median age was 48 (range, 30–85). 9 patients underwent concurrent XRT + CDDP; 3 patients had salvage radiotherapy only due to poor performance status or co-morbidities. Cisplatin was administered weekly, median dose was 30mg/m2 (range, 25–40mg/m2). Median XRT dose was 65 Gy (range, 50–70 Gy) with 5 patients receiving a BID hyper-fractionated regimen. The median follow-up duration was 8 months (range, 2–60 months). 11 of 12 patients demonstrated a partial or complete clinical response to XRT +/− CDDP. 4 out of 8 patients who had surgery following salvage treatment achieved a complete pathological response (pCR). All patients developed grade 2 or 3 radiation dermatitis. No grade 4–5 toxicity was observed. One patient missed one cycle of CDDP due to grade 1 thrombocytopenia. At the last available follow-up, 4 patients were deceased or developed distant metastasis, 5 patients were alive with no evidence of disease, 3 patients had partial tumour response with surgery pending. Conclusions: Patients with locally advanced, triple-negative breast cancer who progressed during or shortly after NAC had a high clinical response rate when treated with salvage XRT+ CDDP. In patients who underwent surgery after salvage treatment, 50% achieved pCR. Salvage treatments appeared to be relatively well tolerated and safe. This subset of patients is at very high risk for tumour recurrence. Prospective, multi-centre studies of concurrent cisplatin and radiotherapy in the setting of locally advanced, triple negative breast cancer are needed to further assess efficacy and toxicity. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-16-14.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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