Trends in systemic management (SM) for the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer: Data from a regional cancer centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10728 Background: Locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) accounts for less than 5% of women diagnosed with breast cancer in North America each year. The scarcity of clinical trials addressing the SM of these women continues to represent a challenge for clinicians. Methods: A retrospective database was developed using the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 2002 staging classification for all women who presented to TOHRCC with LABC between Jan 1/02-April 1/05. Information was obtained from clinic charts and patient self-reported questionnaires. Results: Outcomes reflect the SM of the first 50 women entered into our database. Median age at presentation was 57 years (range 28–88); 62% were post-menopausal; and hormonal status was 52% estrogen receptor (ER) positive and 54% progesterone receptor (PR) positive. Surgery was performed prior to chemotherapy in 50% of patients (pts).The majority (90%) of pts received SM as follows: 38% anthracyclines (A) alone (52% epirubicin, 26% adriamycin, 2% both); 7% taxanes (T) alone (33% paclitaxel, 66% docetaxel), 53% received both T and A regimens, and 2% received other types of chemotherapy (gemcitabine,vinorelbine,capecitabine). The addition of trastuzumab to the SM of HER2-positive pts has also been observed. Hormone therapy was given to 22 pts (44%) of whom 82% were ER or PR-positive: tamoxifen (27%); aromatase inhibitors (AIs; 50%); both tamoxifen and AIs (23%). Pts were treated with AIs as follows: anastrozole (73%); fulvestrant (9%), and atemestane (9%). In pts with measurable disease receiving neoadjuvant SM; 7(35%) had a complete clinical response and 13 (65%) had a partial response; mean tumour size decreased from 7.5 cm (range 2–22) to 2.8 cm (range 0–8). Pathological complete response rates and improved survival rates have been observed and will be reported in detail. Conclusions: These results represent our first analysis of treatment outcomes in women with LABC using the new AJCC system. This database highlights the increased utilization of T and AIs in the SM of these pts, which seems to translate into the increasingly observed improvements in overall survival. Microarray studies to further explore predictability of treatment outcomes are planned. 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".