MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact on relapse free survival (RFS) of time to hormone therapy (HTx) after diagnosis (Dx) of low risk hormone receptor positive (HR+) early breast cancer (BC).

2015· article· en· W2605848529 on OpenAlexaff
Wen Yee Chay, Caroline Speers, Lovedeep Gondara, Scott Tyldesley, Karen A. Gelmon, Caroline Lohrisch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerHazard ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelUnivariate analysisStage (stratigraphy)OncologyHormone receptorCancerGastroenterologyMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

580 Background: Retrospective series show worse RFS for adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) delay. We hypothesized the same effect for delays to HTx in low risk HR+ BC, for which CTx benefit is low. Methods: Histopathologic and demographic data were collected for all patients referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency with a new dx of stage I or II, grade 1 or 2, HR+, HER2 negative BC from 01/2005 to 12/2009. Neoadjuvant-treated, prior or synchronous bilateral BC, no HTx prior to relapse, or > 53 weeks (w) to HTx start were excluded. RFS was calculated for three pre and postmenopausal cohorts (C), defined as 1) 0- < 20 w; 2) 20- < 34 w; 3) 34-53 w from dx to HTx, based on first prescription. Multivariable (M) analysis identified factors significant for RFS. Results: Median follow up for the 3737 cases was 6.4 years (y). 80% were stage I: 28% of C1 and 69% of C3 were stage II. 90% were strongly estrogen receptor (ER) positive. Median age was 64, 58, and 51y in C 1, 2, and 3. Most were menopausal (71%) and 23% had CTx (< 1%, 27%, and 76% of C 1, 2, 3). HTx was started < 20 w and > 34 w after dx in 57% and 15%, respectively. Five year RFS was 97.3%, 96.4%, and 95.5% for C1, 2, and 3 (p0.018). The table below shows univariate (U) and M results, M hazard ratios (Hz) and 95% confidence intervals. Conclusions: While unnecessary delays to HTx should be avoided, we did not detect a significant impact on RFS of up to 1 year delay in low stage and grade, population-based HR+ HER2 negative BCs. RFS was influenced by stage, PR level (all); grade and ER level (menopausal); and age at dx (premenopausal). If there is an impact on early RFS of HTx delay, it is likely subtle and only in premenopausal women. Our results do not exclude an impact on late RFS or in higher risk disease, or explore impact of longer delays. Menopausal Premenopausal p-value U M Hz U M Hz Time cohort 0.007 0.51 0.07 0.055 < 20 v 34+ w 0.90 (0.32, 2.54) pNS Stage I vs II < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.24 (0.16,0.38) 0.005 0.001 0.32 (0.16,0.63) Progesterone receptor (PR) 0.003 0.0014 High vs zero 0.58 (0.35,0.99) p0.046 0.02 0.007 high vs zero 0.24 (0.10,0.58) p0.001 ER < 0.0001 0.016 high vs Low 0.21 (0.07,0.61) P0.004 0.88 Grade 1 vs 2 0.0003 0.0088 0.54 (0.34,0.86) 0.06 0.09 Age 0.77 0.04 0.022 0.94 (0.90,0.99)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.348 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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