Abstract B88: Smoking and survival after breast cancer diagnosis: Role of molecular subtype, body mass index, and menopausal status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Cigarette smoke has been found to affect the metastatic potential of tumor cells and stimulate angiogenesis but its effect on survival among women diagnosed with breast cancer remains poorly understood. Methods: In a cohort of 2265 multiethnic women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2000 and followed for the median of 9 years, we examined whether smoking affected death from breast cancer, non-breast cancer-related causes and all causes. Proportional-hazards models were used to determine whether smoking was associated with time to death while taking into account baseline age, education, body mass index, tumor characteristics and adjuvant treatment. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: There were 164 deaths from breast cancer and 120 deaths from non-breast cancer causes during the median follow up of 9 years. Compared with never smokers, women who were current or past smokers had a 39% higher rate of dying from breast cancer [hazard ratio (HR)=1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.84] and a two-fold higher rate of dying from competing (non-breast cancer) causes (HR=2.16, 95%CI 1.57-3.00). Subgroup analyses revealed that the adverse effect of smoking on breast cancer survival was highest among women with HER2 negative tumors (HR=1.61, 95%CI 1.12-2.32), body mass index of <25kg/m2 (HR=1.83, 95%CI 1.10-3.04) and postmenopausal status (HR=1.47, 95%CI 1.08-1.99). Conclusions: In this prospective cohort study, smoking was associated with an important increased in the risk of death from all causes, competing and breast cancer-specific causes independently of clinical, sociodemographic and other lifestyle-related factors. Molecular breast cancer subtype, body mass index and menopausal status modified the effect of smoking on breast cancer-specific survival. Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2010;3(12 Suppl):B88.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".