MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Toxicity of extended adjuvant aromatase inhibitors therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2017· review· en· W2621961553 on OpenAlexaff
Hadar Goldvaser, Domen Ribnikar, T. Barnes, David W. Cescon, Alberto Ocaña, Eitan Amir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerNumber needed to harmInternal medicineDiscontinuationAdverse effectTolerabilityOdds ratioHazard ratioOncologyAromatase inhibitorAdjuvant therapyPlaceboCancerSurgeryNumber needed to treatRelative riskConfidence intervalAromatasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

549 Background: Aromatase inhibitors (AI) are a gold standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with breast cancer. A number of randomized trials (RCTs) have reported modest improvements in breast cancer outcomes from extending treatment with AI beyond the initial 5 years after diagnosis. However, less in known about the toxicity of extended AI compared with no therapy. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE to identify RCTs that compared extended AI to placebo or no treatment. The search was supplemented by a review of abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium meetings between 2013 and 2016. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CI), absolute risks, and the number needed to harm (NNH) associated with one adverse event were computed for prespecified safety and tolerability outcomes including cardiovascular disease, bone fractures, second cancers (excluding new breast cancer), treatment discontinuation due to adverse events and death without recurrence. Results: Seven trials comprising 16349 patients met the inclusion criteria. Longer treatment with AI was associated with increased odds of cardiovascular disease (OR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.00-1.40, P=0.05; NNH = 122) and bone fractures (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 - 1.55, P < 0.001; NNH = 72). Compared to control, longer AI therapy was associated with a higher odds of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.25 - 1.68, P < 0.001; NNH = 20). Longer AI therapy did not influence the odds of second cancers (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.73-1.18, P = 0.56). There was a numerical excess of death without recurrence with longer AI therapy, but this was not statistically significant (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.9 - 1.36, P = 0.34). Conclusions: Longer durations of AI use are associated with increased cardiovascular events and bone fracture. There is a numerical, but non-statistically significant excess of deaths without breast cancer recurrence among patients receiving longer AI therapy. These data should be taken into account when considering extended adjuvant AI therapy for breast cancer patients.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.034
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.353 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEstrogen and related hormone effects→French-language works237,207→