MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) overestimate the actual response rates observed in clinical practice?

2005· article· en· W2263012629 on OpenAlexaff
R. Dent, Shiv P. Verma, Barbara Fitzgerald, C. Halloway, L. Lickley, Harriette Kahn, Francis Wright, Jean‐Philippe Pignol, Maureen Trudeau, Martha Lenis, M. Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnthracyclineTaxaneBreast cancerInternal medicineRegimenChemotherapyOncologyClinical trialInflammatory breast cancerNeoadjuvant therapyChemotherapy regimenStage (stratigraphy)CancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

890 Background: Neoadjvuant chemotherapy (NAC) is an established standard of care for LABC. Evidence shows that both clinical (cCR) and pathologic (pCR) complete response predicts for locoregional recurrence, disease free and overall survival. However, the definition of pCR is not universal and there exists variation as to the inclusion of residual intraductal and microinvasive disease. Phase II and III trials with different NAC regimens report cCR rates of 60–80% with corresponding pCR rates of 10–39%. Purpose: To compare response rates of cCR and pCR in a prospectively collected patient cohort to those reported in the literature for women with LABC. Methods: Patients with clinical stage III and primary tumors greater than 5cm were defined as having LABC. 49 pts were treated between Sept 2003 & Nov 2004 and were eligible for the study. Two pts were excluded as one discontinued therapy secondary to mitral valve disease and the second moved out of the country to pursue alternative therapies. Results: Median pt age was 50 (range 27 to 76). Clinical staging at diagnosis showed 12% IIB, 48% IIIA, 34% IIIB and 6% IIIC. Eighty-eight percent were clinical stage III at presentation and of these, seven (15%) had T4d inflammatory breast cancers. Eighty three percent had clinical axillary node involvement, 51% of tumours were hormone receptor positive & 38% overexpressed her2neu. Thirty four pts (72%) received an anthracycline based regimen & thirteen pts (28%) received both a taxane and anthracycline based regimen. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 32% of pts had a cCR and 26% had a cPR, for a total clinical response rate of 58%. pCR was seen in 4 (9%) pts. Conclusions: The cCR and pCR response rates in this study were 28% and 9% respectively. This is clearly lower than reported in clinical trials and may reflect the advanced nature of patients selected for neoadjuvant therapy in actual practice. Depending on the definition of pCR used in this study, the range of pCR varied from 4.2% to 10.6% (using definitions form Chevallier et al and NSABP-27 respectively). Thus, it is essential that the pathologic response definition used in each trial be considered when interpreting study outcomes. 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)0.277
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.416
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2770.416
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.371
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.267 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207