Phase II Trial Evaluating the Palliative Benefit of Second-Line Zoledronic Acid in Breast Cancer Patients With Either a Skeletal-Related Event or Progressive Bone Metastases Despite First-Line Bisphosphonate Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether additional palliative benefits could be derived from the second-line use of the more potent bisphosphonate zoledronic acid in metastatic breast cancer patients with either progressive bone metastases or skeletal-related events (SRE), despite first-line therapy with either pamidronate or clodronate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study evaluated the impact of second-line zoledronic acid on pain, quality of life, and markers of bone turnover (for example, urinary N-telopeptide [NTX]). Patients received monthly zoledronic acid (4 mg) for 3 months. Study evaluations were made weekly during the first month and again at week 8. No changes in chemotherapy or endocrine therapy were allowed in the month before or after commencing study treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-one women completed this study. By week 8, patients had experienced significant improvements in pain control (P < .001). There was a downward trend in urinary NTX levels over the same time period (P = .008). Overall, there was a trend towards a positive correlation between improvement in pain control and reduction in week one urinary NTX relative to baseline (Spearman's rho r = 0.27; P = .15). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate that patients with either progressive bone metastases or SREs while on clodronate or pamidronate can have relevant palliative benefits with a switch to the more potent bisphosphonate zoledronic acid. This is reflected by significant improvements in pain control and bone turnover markers. If confirmed in randomized trials, these findings have major implications to the use of bisphosphonates in both the metastatic and adjuvant settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".