MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P1-08-04: Obesity, Adjuvant Therapy, and Survival Outcomes in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

2011· article· en· W2086901983 on OpenAlexaff
Sao Jiralerspong, T Wang, MF Rimawi, JR Nangia, Rachel Schiff, SH Giordano, MN Pollak, CC Chenault, CK Osborne, SG Hilsenbeck

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineBreast cancerBody mass indexOncologyAdjuvant therapyOverweightUnderweightStage (stratigraphy)Proportional hazards modelTamoxifenCancerCohortGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Obesity has risen to epidemic proportions and is associated with worse breast cancer (BC) prognosis in most studies. However, the effects of obesity according to adjuvant therapy choice are largely unknown. To address this issue, we examined the relationship between body mass index (BMI), adjuvant therapy, and survival outcomes in a large cohort of early-stage BC patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients from the Baylor Breast Center Tumor Bank treated from 1970–1995. Patients were divided into 3 BMI classes: normal/underweight (N, BMI<25), overweight (Ov, BMI 25–30), obese (Ob, BMI≥30); and 4 treatment groups: no adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy (mainly CMF), endocrine therapy (mainly tamoxifen), both chemo- and endocrine therapy. Time-to-recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared among groups via the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was conducted via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: There were 4,368 patients. Median age was 58. 74% were postmenopausal. 72% had stage I-II disease, 28% stage III. 76% were estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, 24% ER-negative. Patients distributed into BMI classes as follows: N 48%, Ov 30%, Ob 22%. Higher BMI was associated with postmenopausal status and increasing age, tumor size, positive lymph nodes, and stage, as well as a higher likelihood of receiving treatment. Median follow-up was 5 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that TTR was significantly shorter in the Ov and Ob groups as compared to the N group (p=0.019), due to distant (p=0.001) rather than local (p=0.970) recurrences. DFS was also significantly worse in the Ov and Ob groups (p=0.002), as was OS (p=0.001). The Table shows the hazard ratios for the various survival outcomes after adjustment for age, tumor size, nodal status, and treatment groups. For all patients, TTR, DFS, and OS were significantly worse in the Ob vs. N groups. TTR and DFS were significantly worse in the chemo treated Ob vs. N groups. DFS and OS were significantly better in the endo treated Ov vs. N groups. DISCUSSION: In this large cohort of BC patients, survival outcomes (TTR, DFS, OS) were significantly worse in the obese group. This remained true after adjustment for multiple factors. Obesity was associated with worse survival outcomes in the chemo treated (CMF) group. Overweight was associated with better survival outcomes in the endo treated (tamoxifen) group. These results confirm and extend the results of previous studies. Further studies to discover the reasons for these differences in outcomes are underway. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-08-04.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207