MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Body Mass Index at Diagnosis and Breast Cancer Survival Prognosis in Clinical Trial Populations from NRG Oncology/NSABP B-30, B-31, B-34, and B-38

2015· article· en· W2122236503 on OpenAlexaff
Reena S. Cecchini, Sandra M. Swain, Joseph P. Costantino, Priya Rastogi, Jong‐Hyeon Jeong, Stewart Anderson, Gong Tang, Charles E. Geyer, Barry C. Lembersky, Edward H. Romond, Alexander Paterson, Norman Wolmark

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineBody mass indexOncologyProportional hazards modelCyclophosphamideCancerEstrogen receptorGynecologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) has been associated with breast cancer outcomes. However, few studies used clinical trial settings where treatments and outcomes are consistently evaluated and documented. There are also limited data assessing how patient/disease characteristics and treatment may alter the BMI-breast cancer association. METHODS: We evaluated 15,538 breast cancer participants from four NSABP protocols. B-34 studied early-stage breast cancer patients (N = 3,311); B-30 and B-38 included node-positive breast cancer patients (N = 5,265 and 4,860); and B-31 studied node-positive and HER2-positive breast cancer patients (N = 2,102). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate adjusted hazards ratios (HR) for risk of death and recurrence, and conducted separate analyses by estrogen receptor (ER) status and treatment group. RESULTS: In B-30, increased BMI was significantly related to survival. Compared with BMI < 25, HRs were 1.04 for BMI 25 to 29.9 and 1.18 for BMI ≥ 30 (P = 0.02). Separate analyses indicated the significant relationship was only in ER-positive disease (P = 0.002) and the subgroup treated with doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (P = 0.005). There were no significant trends across BMI for the other three trials. Similar results were found for recurrence. Increased BMI was significantly related to recurrence in B-30 (P = 0.03); and the significant relationship was only in ER-positive breast cancers (P = 0.001). Recurrence was also significant among ER-positive disease in B-38 (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In our investigation, we did not find a consistent relationship between BMI at diagnosis and breast cancer recurrence or death. IMPACT: This work demonstrates that the heterogeneity of breast cancer between different breast cancer populations and the different therapies used to treat them may modify any association that exists between BMI and breast cancer outcome.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207