MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OT1-01-02: A Multicentre Study Assessing 12-Weekly Intravenous Bisphosphonate Therapy in Women with Low Risk Bone Metastases from Breast Cancer – The TRIUMPH Trial.

2011· article· en· W2327132015 on OpenAlexaff
N. Bouganim, John Hilton, Lisa Vandermeer, Sean Hopkins, Patricia L Spencer, David H. Robbins, Eitan Amir, Susan Dent, Carmelo A. Milano, D S Ooi, George Dranitsaris, M. Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerAdverse effectInternal medicineCancerBisphosphonateQuality of life (healthcare)DiseaseSurgeryOncologyOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Metastatic bone disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for breast cancer patients. Bisphosphonates (BP) have been shown to significantly delay the onset and frequency of skeletal related events (SREs), improve pain control and overall quality of life. Most patients receive intravenous BP every 3–4 weeks regardless of their individual risk for a SRE. This “one size fits all” strategy could expose those patients at a relatively low risk of SREs to an increased chance of adverse drug effects, as well as to the financial and quality of life burden of multiple visits to the cancer centre for treatments. This study aimed to assess whether IV BP can be safely given at reduced frequency. Methods: The primary objective of this study is to demonstrate in women with biochemically defined low-risk bone metastases that the administration of IV BP every 12 weeks is sufficient to maintain biochemical stability for one year. Eligibility criteria include; bone metastases from breast cancer, have received at least three months of regular 3–4 weekly IV BP, satisfactory renal function, adequate dental health, no systemic treatment change or recent SRE within 4 weeks of study entry. Low risk disease will be defined as serum CTx levels <600 ng/L Biochemical failure is defined as CTx levels >600 ng/L measured at predefined time points (6, 12, 24, 36 and 48th). Secondary objectives are to evaluate the palliative benefit of 12-weekly IV BP therapy as reflected by occurrence of SREs, analgesic use, self-reported pain using the validated BP and FACT-BP questionnaires. Sample size was calculated at 68 patients. Given the small sample size, nonparametric Bootstrapping will be employed to calculate point estimates, standard deviations and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). An exploratory multivariable analysis will also be undertaken to determine baseline factors that were associated with patient's maintaining their telopeptide levels in the low risk range. Conclusion: TRIUMPH opened in October 2010 and as of June 2011, has quickly accrued 54/68 patients (79%). This trial has the potential to allow lower risk women to receive less frequent dosing of bisphosphonates, thus improving their quality of life with less cancer center visits and reducing their chance of drug induced adverse events. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-01-02.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207