MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Can locoregional treatment of the primary tumor improve outcomes for women with stage IV breast cancer at diagnosis?

2011· article· en· W2560228393 on OpenAlexaff
David H. Nguyen, Pauline T. Truong, Mary Lesperance, C. Alexander, Caroline V. Walter, Emily Hayashi, Jennifer Christie, I. A. Olivotto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCancerStage (stratigraphy)OncologyCohortAsymptomaticSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

89 Background: To determine whether locoregional treatment (LRT) of the primary tumor improves outcomes in patients with stage IV breast cancer at diagnosis. Methods: The study cohort comprised 733 women referred from 1996 to 2005 to a population-based cancer institution with clinical or pathologic M1 breast cancer at diagnosis. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared between women who were treated with (n=378) and without LRT (n=355) of the primary tumor. Five-year Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) and locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS) were compared between groups. Multivariable analysis to control for potential confounding factors was performed using Cox regression modeling. Results: LRT consisted of surgery alone in 67%, radiotherapy alone in 22%, and both in 11% of patients. LRT use was significantly associated with age <50 years, ECOG performance status 0-1, T1-2 tumors, and N0-1 disease, (all p<0.05). Subjects with less metastatic disease burden and those asymptomatic from the M1 disease were more likely to undergo LRT (p<0.001). Systemic therapy was used in 92% and 85% of patients treated with vs. without LRT, respectively. Five-year OS rates in the LRT and no LRT cohorts were 21% vs 14% (p<0.001). The 5-year LRPFS rates were 72% vs 46% (p<0.001). Among 378 patients who underwent LRT, 5-year OS rates were higher in patients with age <50, ECOG 0-1, ER positive disease, clear surgical margins, single M1 subsite, bone only metastases, and 1-3 metastatic lesions (all p<0.003). Type of LRT (surgery vs radiotherapy vs both) and type of surgery (lumpectomy vs mastectomy) were not associated with 5-year OS (all p>0.05). On multivariable analysis, LRT was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.94, p=0.009). Conclusions: LRT of the primary disease was associated with improved survival in women with stage IV breast cancer at diagnosis. Among subjects treated with LRT, the most favorable survival rates were observed in patients with young age, good performance status, ER-positive disease, clear resection margins and in those with distant disease limited to one subsite, bone only, or fewer than 4 metastatic lesions.

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)0.001
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNon-randomized 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 venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→