Risk of Acute Leukemia Following Epirubicin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Report From the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (CEF), compared with classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy. has lead to an improvement in relapse-free and overall survival in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. We undertook this analysis to more accurately define the estimate of risk of secondary acute leukemia (sAL) following epirubicin-containing chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed the conditional probability of sAL among 1,545 women who received adjuvant (n = 1,477) or neoadjuvant (n = 68) chemotherapy in four National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group trials from 1990 to 1999. The risks associated with epirubicin-containing regimens (CEF or epirubicin and cyclophosphamide [EC]) and other regimens (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide [AC] or CMF) were determined. RESULTS: A total of 10 cases of sAL were observed (eight acute myelogeneous leukemia, two acute lymphoblastic leukemia): seven among women treated with CEF, two who had received AC, and one following CMF. Using competing risk statistics, the conditional probability of sAL was 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5 to 3.6) among 539 women treated with CEF chemotherapy at a follow-up of 8 years, 0.4% (95% CI, 0% to 1.3%) among the 678 who received CMF, and 1.3% (95% CI, 0% to 4.7%) among the 231 treated with AC. The conditional probability of death from breast cancer at 8 years for the entire group of women treated with epirubicin-containing regimens in all four trials was approximately 34.9%. CONCLUSION: CEF chemotherapy for breast cancer carries a small increased risk of sAL compared with CMF. These estimates of acute leukemia risk are important in discussing treatment with women, especially patients with a lower risk of death from breast cancer, such as those with node-negative breast cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".