Central nervous system (CNS) metastases (mets) in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients (pts): Patterns of relapse and impact on survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1017 Background: Several studies have documented an increase in the incidence of CNS mets in HER2+ MBC pts (Bendell, 2003; Heinrich, 2003). Of interest is whether there are any specific patterns of CNS metastasis and if they have an impact on survival. Methods: This retrospective study included 100 HER2+ MBC pts who received trastuzumab with or without chemotherapy for their disease between Jan 1/00 and Jan 1/05. Pts were selected for the presence (n=50) or absence (n=50) of CNS mets. Demographics, location of mets and timeline-related variables (survival) were compared. Results: In 50 MBC pts with CNS mets, the most common site was the cerebellum (82%); and symptoms were related to increased intracranial pressure, primarily as a result of disease-related cerebral edema (73%). Compared to 50 pts without CNS mets, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival from the time of initial diagnosis of breast cancer. Of interest, pts with CNS mets lived longer (61.3 months) than pts without CNS mets (47.1 months). However, survival after disease progression or recurrence significantly favoured patients with CNS mets (36.8 months v. 22.0 months respectively; p=0.02). Causes of death in both cohorts were also examined. Conclusions: In our observation, CNS mets did not have an adverse effect on overall survival. In fact, pts who developed CNS mets lived longer than those pts without CNS mets. This may in part be due to more aggressive management of CNS mets, or lack of extracranial progression. 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".