MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P4-16-08: Pilot Randomized Trial of De-Escalated (q12 Weekly) Versus Standard (q3-4 Weekly) Intravenous Bisphosphonates in Women with Low-Risk Bone Metastases from Breast Cancer.

2011· article· en· W2323138189 on OpenAlexaff
Eitan Amir, OC Freedman, Lars Carlsson, T. Usmani, Eun-Young Lee, George Dranitsaris, M. Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomizationN-terminal telopeptideBreast cancerRandomized controlled trialBone painInternal medicineSurgeryBrief Pain InventoryCancerPhysical therapyAlkaline phosphataseChronic pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Bone-targeted agent such as bisphosphonates (BPs) can reduce skeletal complications from bone metastases but have no effect on either disease progression or survival. Despite substantial variability in the frequency and severity of skeletal complications, patients are empirically treated with BPs at the same dose and schedule irrespective of their individual risk. Materials and Methods: A pilot, randomized, non-inferiority trial was conducted. Patients with low-risk bone metastases (serum C-telopeptide [CTx] <600ng/L after at least 3 cycles of monthly IV BP) were assigned to pamidronate 90mg IV either every 3–4 weeks (control) or every 12 weeks (de-escalated). Data on serum CTx and bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), pain scores (brief pain inventory [BPI] and functional assessment of cancer therapy-bone pain [FACT-BP]) were collected at 12 weekly intervals for 48 weeks. Results: Fifty-four patients were approached, 44 provided consent and 38 were eligible for randomization. Median age was 55 (range 29–77) and mean baseline CTx was 319ng/L (range 10–526). Thirty-five participants (92%) completed the trial, 2 withdrew consent and one participant died. Fourteen control group participants (73.7%) and 13 experimental group participants (68.4%) maintained CTx in the low risk range (test for two proportions p=0.64). All patients not maintaining CTx in the low risk range showed evidence of both visceral and bone progression. Compared to the control group, there was a trend towards increasing CTx with time in the experimental group (p=0.10). There was no significant difference in BAP (p=0.37), BPI (p=0.21) or FACT-BP scores (p=0.59) between the two groups. Over the 48 week follow-up, two skeletal events were observed in each group. Conclusions: Randomized trials of de-escalated BP therapy in women with low-risk bone metastases are feasible. Twelve-weekly pamidronate appears non-inferior to 3–4 weekly treatment. Larger trials are required to assess whether; 1) increasing CTx levels with de-escalated therapy will lead to higher rates of skeletal complications and 2) whether BP should be given every 3–4 weeks in patients with progressive visceral and bone disease. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-16-08.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→