Effectiveness of a Letter Notification Program for Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Eligible for Extended Adjuvant Letrozole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose After National Cancer Institute of Canada trial MA.17 demonstrated benefits with letrozole after 5 years of tamoxifen, oncologists needed to identify and offer therapy to patients in community follow-up who were eligible for extended adjuvant hormone therapy. In British Columbia (BC), letters about extended letrozole therapy were sent to eligible BC women, their primary care physicians (PCPs), and their oncologists. We evaluated the effectiveness of this communication strategy. Patients and Methods Eight hundred eighty-five women with stage I-III breast cancer who completed 4 to 6 years of tamoxifen in 2004 with no documented recurrence were sent letters describing extended adjuvant letrozole in February 2005. Treatment uptake and characteristics for women who did or did not receive a subsequent letrozole prescription were described. Results Among 838 eligible women, 305 (36%) received a letrozole prescription before April 2006. More women in the letrozole cohort had tumors larger than 2.0 cm (44.2% v 30.8%); node-positive disease (52.5% v 22.5%); prior radiotherapy (71.1% v 58.5%); and prior chemotherapy (51.5% v 20.8%; all P ≤ .001). Among women younger than 70 years with node-positive disease, 65% received letrozole (122 of 188). Most prescribing physicians were oncologists (57.0%) or PCPs (30.8%). A significant increase in letrozole prescriptions was observed after the letter mail-out. Conclusion In this population-based setting, extended adjuvant letrozole was more common among younger women with higher risk disease and more prior therapy but underutilized overall. The reasons for extended therapy underutilization and the role of the letter mail-out strategy in informing breast cancer survivors of new available treatments in other health systems warrant further study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".