MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ventricular-Arterial Coupling in Breast Cancer Patients After Treatment With Anthracycline-Containing Adjuvant Chemotherapy

2016· article· en· W2239866897 on OpenAlexafffund
Graeme J. Koelwyn, Nia C. S. Lewis, Susan Ellard, Lee W. Jones, Jinelle C. Gelinas, Julia Rolf, Bernie Melzer, Samantha M. Thomas, Pamela S. Douglas, Michel G. Khouri, Neil D. Eves

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer AgencyInterior Health
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineEjection fractionContractilityAnthracyclineBreast cancerSubclinical infectionArterial stiffnessChemotherapyCancerHeart failureBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anthracycline-containing chemotherapy (Anth-C) is associated with long-term cardiovascular mortality. Although cardiovascular risk assessment has traditionally focused on the heart, evidence has demonstrated that vascular dysfunction also occurs during and up to 1 year following Anth-C. Whether vascular dysfunction persists long-term or negatively influences cardiac function remains unknown. Hence, the present study evaluated ventricular-arterial coupling, in concert with measures of vascular structure and function, in the years following Anth-C. METHODS: Arterial elastance (Ea), end-systolic elastance (Ees), and ventricular-arterial coupling (Ea/Ees) were measured during rest and exercise using echocardiography. Resting vascular function (flow-mediated dilation) and structure (carotid intima-media thickness, arterial stiffness) were also measured. RESULTS: Thirty breast cancer survivors (6.5 ± 3.6 years after Anth-C) with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (60% ± 6%) and 30 matched controls were studied. At rest, no differences were found in Ea, Ees, Ea/Ees, or LVEF between groups. The normal exercise-induced increase in Ees was attenuated in survivors at 50% and 75% of maximal workload (p < .01). Ea/Ees was also higher at all workloads in the survivors compared with the controls (p < .01). No differences in vascular structure and function were observed between the two groups (p > .05). CONCLUSION: In the years after Anth-C, ventricular-arterial coupling was significantly attenuated during exercise, primarily owing to decreased LV contractility (indicated by a reduced Ees). This subclinical dysfunction appears to be isolated to the heart, as no differences in Ea were observed. The previously reported adverse effects of Anth-C on the vasculature appear to not persist in the years after treatment, as vascular structure and function were comparable to controls. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity results in significantly impaired ventricular-arterial coupling in the years following chemotherapy, owing specifically to decreased left ventricular contractility. This subclinical dysfunction was identified only under exercise stress. A comprehensive evaluation of vascular structure and function yielded no differences between those treated with anthracyclines and controls. Combined with a stress stimulus, ventricular-arterial coupling might hold significant value beyond characterization of integrative cardiovascular function, in particular as a part of a risk-stratification strategy after anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. Although vascular function and structure were not different in this cohort, this does not undermine the importance of identifying vascular (dys)function in this population, because increases in net arterial load during exercise might amplify the effect of reductions in contractility on cardiovascular function after anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigationFrench-language works237,207