Visceral Crisis Means Short Survival Among Patients With Luminal A Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with visceral crisis from luminal metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are often treated with palliative chemotherapy. No studies have analyzed the aggressiveness of the care in visceral crisis from luminal mBC patients. The objective of this study was to assess practices in this setting in a university medical oncology department. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients who were managed for luminal mBC between January 2013 and April 2016. The analysis focused on the characteristics of the patients, the modalities of cancer treatment and delays between visceral crisis and death. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients pre-treated with two hormonal therapy lines were enrolled retrospectively. Worse performance status and a higher proportion of severe organ dysfunction for luminal mBC were observed among patients with visceral crisis. Sixty-five percent of patients received cytotoxic treatment. One cycle of chemotherapy was administrated in the majority of patients. Palliative care was performed in 35% of patients. Chemotherapy did not have any significant effect on patient outcome in the present study. The mean time between visceral crisis and death was 4.7 weeks (standard deviation = 1.9). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that visceral crisis in patients with luminal mBC is a complex problem. We need more comprehension of molecular pathogenesis to visceral crisis disease to propose efficacious treatments for these patients and to identify subgroup of patients who need chemotherapy followed by maintenance endocrine therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".