Investigating the discernible and distinct effects of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer on time to progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platinum-based chemotherapy regimens are frequently used in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The aim of the current study was to assess whether or not platinum-based chemotherapy is associated with an increased time to progression when compared with non-platinum-based regimens in TNBC and non-TNBC. A retrospective analysis was conducted within a cohort of patients with metastatic breast cancer who received platinum-based chemotherapy at a single institution. Data were collected for up to three lines of treatment for metastatic disease. Time to progression was determined for platinum-based chemotherapy and non-platinum-based regimens for each line of treatment. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated comparing the time to progression associated with the use of platinum-based chemotherapy versus non-platinum-based regimens. A total of 159 patients were included in the analysis, with 58 diagnosed with TNBC. Among the patients with TNBC, compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, no correlation was identified between platinum-based chemotherapy and an improved time to progression [first line: HR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.40-2.35); second line: HR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.42-2.01); and third line: HR, 2.83 (95% CI, 0.73-11.03)]. By contrast, patients with non-TNBC appeared to improve with non-platinum-based chemotherapy [first line: HR, 2.57 (95% CI, 1.11-5.99); second line: HR, 1.91 (95% CI, 1.00-3.63); and third line: HR, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.53-2.18)]. Although the present study was limited by the sample size and its observational nature, the results indicated that platinum-based chemotherapy does not offer a discernible or distinct advantage compared with standard regimens in patients with TNBC, and is perhaps less efficacious in patients with non-TNBC.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".