Randomized Trial of a Telephone-Based Weight Loss Intervention in Postmenopausal Women With Breast Cancer Receiving Letrozole: The LISA Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Obesity is associated with poor outcomes in women with operable breast cancer. Lifestyle interventions (LIs) that help women reduce their weight may improve outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized trial comparing mail-based delivery of general health information alone or combined with a 24-month standardized, telephone-based LI that included diet (500 to 1,000 kcal per day deficit) and physical activity (150 to 200 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week) goals to achieve weight loss (up to 10%). Women receiving adjuvant letrozole for T1-3N0-3M0 breast cancer with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 24 kg/m(2) were eligible. Weight was measured in the clinic, and self-report physical activity, quality-of-life (QOL), and diet questionnaires were completed. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Accrual was terminated at 338 of 2,150 planned patients because of loss of funding. RESULTS: Mean weight loss was significantly (P < .001) greater in the LI arm versus the comparison arm (4.3 v 0.6 kg or 5.3% v 0.7% at 6 months and 3.1 v 0.3 kg or 3.6% v 0.4% at 24 months) and occurred consistently across strata (BMI 24 to < 30 v ≥ 30 kg/m(2); prior v no prior adjuvant chemotherapy). Weight loss was greatest in those with higher baseline levels of moderate-intensity physical activity or improvement in QOL. Hospitalization rates and medical events were similar. CONCLUSION: A telephone-based LI led to significant weight loss that was still evident at 24 months, without adverse effects on QOL, hospitalizations, or medical events. Adequately powered randomized trials with cancer end points are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".