Comparison of breast cancer recurrence and outcome patterns between patients treated in 1986-1992 and 2004-2008.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
521 Background: Different patterns of breast cancer (BC) recurrence overtime have been reported according to estrogen receptor (ER) status. We report a change in BC recurrence patterns. Methods: Females with biopsy proven BC, stages I-III, treated at the BCCA 1986-1992 (cohort 1 – C1) and mid 2004-2008 (cohort 2 – C2), with known ER and HER2 status were eligible. Data was prospectively collected. C2 cases were matched to C1 by random case selection for grade and stage to adjust for imbalances. Endpoints were annual hazard rates of recurrence (HRR) and annual hazard rates of death (HRD). Results: After random sampling, 10,283 pts were included: 3672 in C1 and 6611 in C2. BC subtypes in C1 and C2 were, respectively, ER+/HER2-: 71.2 vs 64.8%; ER+/HER2+: 6.7 vs 11.7%; ER-/HER2+: 6.5 vs 8.2%; ER-/HER2-: 15.5 vs 15.3%. The HRR per yearly interval (up to year 9) for all subtypes have halved in C2. For ER+/HER2- BC, HRR in C2 was half of the HRR in C1. Differences in HRR between C1 and 2 were greater in the initial 5 intervals for HER2+ and triple-negative (TN) BC. The HRD have also decreased, but to a lesser extent. Conclusions: Outcomes have improved for all BC subtypes, but particularly for HER2+ and TN BC. The early spike in disease recurrence has markedly decreased. These contemporary hazard rates are important for treatment decisions and patient discussions, but also for planning of early BC trials. HRR (%) Yearly interval 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 Cohort 1 4.7±0.4 8.8±0.5 6.8±0.5 5.0±0.4 4.2±0.4 3.7±0.4 3.0±0.4 3.1±0.4 1.8±0.3 Cohort 2 2.7±0.2 4.0±0.3 3.6±0.2 2.6±0.2 2.0±0.2 1.3±0.2 1.2±0.2 1.2±0.3 0.3±0.3 ER+/HER2- C1C2 2.7±0.3 6.2±0.5 5.0±0.5 4.3±0.5 4.1±0.5 4.1±0.5 3.3±0.4 3.4±0.5 1.9±0.4 1.5±0.2 2.5±0.2 3.0±0.3 2.2±0.2 1.9±0.2 1.4±0.2 1.7±0.3 1.3±0.4 0.4±0.4 ER+/HER2+ C1C2 6.7±1.7 13.7±2.5 12.1±2.6 21.6±2.6 6.9±2.2 3.7±1.7 3.2±1.6 4.3±1.9 2.8±1.6 2.5±0.6 3.1±0.7 3.9±0.7 3.0±0.7 2.7±0.7 1.8±0.6 0.3±0.3 0.7±0.7 0 ER-/HER2+ C1C2 13.9±2.5 23.6±3.6 17.0±3.4 7.8±2.5 6.8±2.4 2.7±1.6 1.8±1.3 1.9±1.3 2.0±1.4 4.0±0.9 8.3±1.3 5.5±1.1 3.0±0.8 1.3±0.6 0.3±0.3 0 1.7±1.2 0 TNBC C1C2 9.4±1.3 14.6±1.7 11.0±1.6 5.3±1.2 2.5±0.8 1.5±0.7 1.8±0.7 1.6±0.7 1.3±0.6 7.3±0.9 9.1±1.0 5.5±0.8 3.8±0.7 2.0±0.5 0.7±0.4 0.5±0.3 0.9±0.6 0
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".