MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Use of adjuvant chemotherapy and outcomes in women age 70 and older with HER2-positive (HER2+) or triple-negative (TN) breast cancer (BC).

2013· article· en· W2602042969 on OpenAlexaff
Tina Hsu, Caroline Speers, Scott Tyldesley, Stephen Chia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineBreast cancerChemotherapyTrastuzumabOncologyMastectomyStage (stratigraphy)CancerGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1044 Background: Chemotherapy use decreases with increasing age. There is a stronger rationale for adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2+ and TN BC due to a higher risk of recurrence, known benefit of trastuzumab with chemotherapy and lack of other systemic options. Aims: 1) Characterize and compare outcomes of resected HER2+/TN BC in older women (age ≥70) (OW) vs. younger women (age 50-69) (YW) 2) Determine chemotherapy use in OW vs. YW 3) Compare outcomes in OW based on receipt of chemotherapy. Methods: Women ≥ 50 years old with newly diagnosed resected HER2+ or TN stage I-III BC in British Columbia between 2003 and 2006 were included. Demographic, prognostic and treatment characteristics were compared in OW vs. YW using Chi-Square and t-tests. Kaplan-Meier curves for relapse-free survival (RFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated in the various cohorts. Results: OW (n=292) had larger tumors (p=0.002), more often had mastectomy and less often had adjuvant radiation (p<0.001) than YW (n=946). There were no differences in nodal or receptor status. OW vs. YW were less likely to receive chemotherapy (28.1 vs. 81.3%, p<0.001); odds decreased with increasing age (OR 15.9 and 7.4 for women age 50-59 and 60-69 vs. ≥70, p<0.001). OW had worse 5-year RFS (75.4 vs. 83.2%, p=0.002), local RFS (93.2 vs. 95.5%, p=0.05) and distant RFS (77.5 vs. 85.5%, p=0.001). Both 5-year BCSS (79.5 vs. 88.1%, p<0.001) and OS (63.7 vs. 85.8%, p<0.001) were worse in OW vs. YW. OS, but not BC-specific outcomes (RFS, BCSS), was significantly better in those who received chemotherapy compared to those who did not (Table). Conclusions: OW with HER2+ and TN BC are less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy than YW. No difference in BCSS was noted in OW based on receipt of chemotherapy, possibly due to a small sample size. Differences in OS based on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy suggest that oncologists in British Columbia are accurately identifying women with limited life expectancy less likely to benefit from chemotherapy. [Table: see text]

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→