MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Primary tumor and patient characteristics in breast cancer as predictors of adjuvant chemotherapy regimen: A regression model

2009· article· en· W2241207331 on OpenAlexaff
Valerie Francescutti, Forough Farrokhyar, Richard Tozer, B. Heller, Peter Lovrics, Gwen Jansz, Kamyar Kahnamoui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegimenBreast cancerInternal medicineChemotherapyLogistic regressionOncologyHormonal therapyUnivariate analysisChemotherapy regimenOdds ratioMultivariate analysisStage (stratigraphy)Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e11632 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy is used to reduce the risk of recurrence of breast cancer. This study was undertaken to determine which patient and tumor characteristics are important in guiding the choice of adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken of patients diagnosed with breast cancer (stages I-III) at a regional cancer center from 2004–7. Patient and tumor characteristics were identified and chemotherapy regimens compared. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to the choice of FEC/D, CEF, AC/T, or ddAC/T against AC or CMF, or the choice of chemotherapy to hormonal therapy only. Univariate analysis was used to select factors (p<0.1) for entry into a multivariate stepwise logistic regression model using the forward method. Odds ratios with 95% CI were calculated. A p-value of < 0.05 was significant and comparisons were two tailed. Results: Model 1 (n=871) included regimen (AC or CMF vs. aggressive regimen) as the dependant variable. Indicators of choice of aggressive regimen were higher stage [OR 4.7 (CI 3.3, 6.8)], positive nodes [2.5 (1.6, 3.8)], negative PR [2.1 (1.4, 3.1)], higher grade [1.4 (1.0, 1.8)], and age [0.91 (0.88, 0.92)]. Model 2 (n=640) involved choice of any regimen (chemotherapy vs. hormonal therapy only) as the dependant variable. Indicators of choice of chemotherapy were higher stage [7.19 (2.8, 18.4)], higher grade [7.02 (3.3, 14.8)], positive nodes [3.25 (0.98, 10.77)], age [0.85 (0.81, 0.90)], and ER negativity [0.04 (0.004, 0.37)]. Factors not significant in both models were: family history, comorbidities (renal/hepatic dysfunction, diabetes, cardiac history, or neuropathy), treating medical oncologist, histology, Her2/neu, > 3 positive nodes, ratio of positive to total nodes, multicentricity, multifocality, and positive margin status. Conclusions: This study verifies known important factors for choice of chemotherapy regimen as found in current guidelines, quantifies their effects at our center, and excludes others thought to be important. Further studies are required to confirm these results both nationally and internationally, where risk stratification may be different, and if variables predicting adjuvant radiation therapy are similar. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→