MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment patterns and characteristics of post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer receiving everolimus.

2015· article· en· W2595420534 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Vekeman, Yanni Hao, Wendy Y. Cheng, Jonathan Fortier, Marie-Noëlle Robitaille, Mei Sheng Duh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastatic breast cancerExemestaneInternal medicineBreast cancerEverolimusOncologyOdds ratioCancerAnastrozoleGynecologyTamoxifen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e11502 Background: The use of everolimus (EVE) in combination with exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC) has been studied in clinical trials, yet little is known of its real-world utilization. We aimed to characterize treatment patterns and characteristics of HR+/HER2- mBC patients (pts) with first-line endocrine therapy (Tx), who ever vs. never used EVE in real-world settings. Methods: Data were from a community oncology electronic medical records database from Altos Solutions, Inc. Eligible pts were postmenopausal women, with ≥ 1 medical record with a BC diagnosis, confirmed HR+/HER2- status, first mBC diagnosis after July 1, 2012, and received first-line endocrine Tx. Characteristics of pts who ever vs. never received EVE were compared. Potential predictors of EVE use, including age at index date and at first breast cancer diagnosis, race, region, insurance type, metastatic sites, ECOG performance status, and disease recurrence, were assessed using logistic regressions. Results: Of the 676 pts who met the inclusion criteria, 83 (12%) ever received EVE vs. 593 (88%) never. EVE was initiated primarily in second line (42.2%), followed by first line (41.0%), third line (10.8%), and fourth + lines (6%). Pts receiving EVE were younger at first mBC diagnosis (mean, 62 vs. 69 years; p < 0.001) and at first BC diagnosis (58 vs. 66 years; p < 0.001). Distribution of ECOG was similar between the 2 cohorts. Controlling for other characteristics, age was a significant predictor of EVE use in first-line Tx (odds ratio: 0.95, p = 0.003), but not in later lines. While not statistically significant, pts with higher ECOG were more likely to receive EVE in first line, and not in later lines. Pts with bone metastases were less likely to receive EVE in first line, but more likely in second + lines. Insurance type was not a predictor of EVE use. Conclusions: EVE is typically used in second line in pts with HR+/HER2- mBC with first-line endocrine Tx. Pts who start EVE earlier tend to be younger with worse prognosis for mBC. Studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further characterize EVE pts and assess their treatment outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.347 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207