MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144133819 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djr242

Toxicity of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2011· review· en· W2144133819 on OpenAlexaff
Eitan Amir, Boštjan Šeruga, Saroj Niraula, Lindsay Carlsson, Alberto Ocaña

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisOncologyAdjuvantBreast cancerEndocrine systemInternal medicineToxicityAdjuvant therapyCancerHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors are associated with consistent improvements in disease-free survival but not in overall survival. We conducted a literature-based meta-analysis of randomized trials to examine whether the relative toxicity of aromatase inhibitors compared with tamoxifen may explain this finding. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials that compared aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen as primary adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and databases of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), absolute risks, and the number needed to harm associated with one adverse event were computed for prespecified serious adverse events including cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, bone fractures, thromboembolic events, endometrial carcinoma and other second cancers not including new breast cancer. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Seven trials enrolling 30,023 patients met the inclusion criteria. Longer duration of aromatase inhibitor use was associated with increased odds of developing cardiovascular disease (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.43, P < .001; number needed to harm = 132) and bone fractures (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.61, P < .001; number needed to harm = 46), but a decreased odds of venous thrombosis (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.64, P < .001; number needed to harm = 79) and endometrial carcinoma (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.53, P < .001; number needed to harm = 258). Five years of aromatase inhibitors was associated with a non-statistically significant increased odds of death without recurrence compared with 5 years of tamoxifen alone or tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by an aromatase inhibitor for 2-3 years (OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.26, P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative toxicity of aromatase inhibitors when used as up-front treatment may explain the lack of overall survival benefit despite improvements in disease-free survival. Switching from tamoxifen to aromatase inhibitors reduces this toxicity and is likely the best balance between efficacy and toxicity.

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)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.034
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations624
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207