MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P2-09-14: Association between BMI and residual estradiol levels in post-menopausal women using adjuvant letrozole: Results of a prospective study

2017· article· en· W2594523044 on OpenAlexaffabout
DW Cescon, Marguerite Ennis, Kathleen I. Pritchard, Carol Townsley, Dave Warr, Christine Elser, Lakshmi Rao, Vuk Stambolic, SS Sridhar, PJ Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoStatistics CanadaSunnybrook Health Science CentreLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLetrozoleMedicineAromatase inhibitorAnastrozoleBody mass indexBreast cancerTamoxifenOverweightInternal medicineProspective cohort studyGynecologyEstroneEstrogenMultivitaminCancerVitamin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) are the standard of care for post-menopausal women with early breast cancer (BC). Some studies have suggested that women with high BMI have less benefit from some AIs (anastrozole, but not letrozole) vs. tamoxifen. Of concern, a positive correlation between BMI and residual estradiol in women using letrozole has been reported (ALIQUOT Study; JCO 2012). These findings have created uncertainty about the use of AIs in overweight and obese women. We conducted a prospective study to measure estrogen levels in post-menopausal women using adjuvant letrozole, with the primary objective of evaluating the relationship between residual E2 and BMI. Methods: Post-menopausal women with early BC taking adjuvant letrozole for at least 3 months were recruited at 4 sites in Toronto, Canada. Fasting blood was collected 24 hours after the prior dose at baseline (Day 1, routine use of own letrozole, including generic) and on Day 29, following 28 days of monitored adherence to a provided supply of Femara 2.5 mg/day (Part A). Participants with BMI>25 were treated for a further 28 days (Part B) with a double dose of Femara (5 mg/day). Estradiol and estrone were measured using a high sensitivity liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. Vitamin D and markers of obesity/inflammation were assayed, and symptom/quality of life questionnaires completed at the same time points. Results: 112 eligible patients were enrolled and completed Part A. Median age was 62 and BMI 24.7 kg/m2 (range 19.0 to 42.2 kg/m2). 68% of participants had received adjuvant chemotherapy. Estradiol levels (mean±SD) were 2.81±1.15 pg/mL at baseline (typical use) and 2.69±1.01 pg/mL at Day 29 following monitored Femara use with near-perfect adherence (p=NS). No significant correlation was observed between estradiol and BMI on either Day 1 or Day 29 (r=0.06, p=NS). As previously reported, letrozole 5 mg/day dose did not affect residual estradiol levels at Day 58 for women with BMI>25. Residual estradiol was not correlated with vitamin D or markers of obesity/inflammation (insulin, leptin, CRP). Conclusion: No association was observed between BMI and residual estradiol in women using letrozole (generic or Femara) at standard doses. These results are consistent with the absence of a treatment-by-BMI interaction in the BIG 1-98 trial and they provide reassurance that letrozole is an appropriate treatment in overweight and obese women. Funded by Hold 'Em For Life (Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto) and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Citation Format: Cescon DW, Ennis M, Pritchard KI, Townsley C, Warr D, Elser C, Rao L, Stambolic V, Sridhar S, Goodwin PJ. Association between BMI and residual estradiol levels in post-menopausal women using adjuvant letrozole: Results of a prospective study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-14.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207