MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596883961 · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.70.7257

Use of Adjuvant Bisphosphonates and Other Bone-Modifying Agents in Breast Cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

2017· review· en· W2596883961 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sukhbinder Dhesy‐Thind, Glenn G. Fletcher, Phillip Blanchette, Mark Clemons, Melissa S. Dillmon, Elizabeth Frank, Sonal Gandhi, Rasna Gupta, Mihaela Mates, Beverly Moy, Ted Vandenberg, Catherine Van Poznak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDenosumabZoledronic acidBreast cancerGuidelineInternal medicineOncologyAdjuvantAdjuvant therapyCancerClinical trialOsteonecrosis of the jawBisphosphonateOsteoporosisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To make recommendations regarding the use of bisphosphonates and other bone-modifying agents as adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer. Methods Cancer Care Ontario and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. Results Adjuvant bisphosphonates were found to reduce bone recurrence and improve survival in postmenopausal patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. In this guideline, postmenopausal includes patients with natural menopause or that induced by ovarian suppression or ablation. Absolute benefit is greater in patients who are at higher risk of recurrence, and almost all trials were conducted in patients who also received systemic therapy. Most studies evaluated zoledronic acid or clodronate, and data are extremely limited for other bisphosphonates. While denosumab was found to reduce fractures, long-term survival data are still required. Recommendations It is recommended that, if available, zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously every 6 months) or clodronate (1,600 mg/d orally) be considered as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who are deemed candidates for adjuvant systemic therapy. Further research comparing different bone-modifying agents, doses, dosing intervals, and durations is required. Risk factors for osteonecrosis of the jaw and renal impairment should be assessed, and any pending dental or oral health problems should be dealt with prior to starting treatment. Data for adjuvant denosumab look promising but are currently insufficient to make any recommendation. Use of these agents to reduce fragility fractures in patients with low bone mineral density is beyond the scope of the guideline. Recommendations are not meant to restrict such use of bone-modifying agents in these situations. Additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-adjuvant-bisphosphonates-guideline , www.asco.org/guidelineswiki , https://www.cancercareontario.ca/guidelines-advice/types-of-cancer/breast .

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.567
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.088 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations223
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207