MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P1-13-01: Duration of adjuvant trastuzumab in HER-2 positive breast cancer: Pooled results of overall, and disease-free survivals from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

2018· article· en· W2789592353 on OpenAlexaff
Saroj Niraula, Bishal Gyawali

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrastuzumabInternal medicineHazard ratioBreast cancerMeta-analysisOncologyRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalOdds ratioAdjuvantCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The duration of one year of trastuzumab for treatment of HER-2 positive breast cancer was chosen arbitrarily. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have since explored efficacy of shorter durations of trastuzumab compared to 1 year, but the results from such RCTs are inconsistent, and are subject to different interpretations due mainly to varying definitions of non-inferiority. Methods: Systematic search of pubmed, embase, and major conference proceedings was performed to identify RCTs comparing outcomes of one year versus shorter trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Efficacy outcomes [Hazard Ratios (HR) for Overall Survival (OS) and Disease Free Survival (DFS) with respective 95% Confidence Intervals (CI)] and toxicity outcome [Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% CI for cardiac events] from each study were weighted using generic inverse variance approach and pooled in a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using tau2 and i2 statistics. Interactions on overall results by hormone receptor status, and nodal status were assessed using chi2 statistics. Results: Three RCTs involving 5,114 patients reported outcomes on both OS and DFS. Two studies evaluated 6 months and 1 study evaluated 9 weeks of adjuvant trastuzumab, compared to 1 year. Individual RCTs had failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of shorter duration compared to 1 year based on various pre-specified upper limits of CI (of <1.15, <1.29 and <1.59, respectively). Pooled analyses demonstrated statistically significant improvements in both OS (HR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.98), and DFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.93) with the use of 1 year of trastuzumab compared to shorter durations suggesting superiority favoring 1 year of treatment, despite non-inferiority designs of individual trials. Sensitivity analyses based on duration of the experimental arm (9 weeks or 6 months) did not influence the direction, or size of overall effects. Pooled sub-group analyses demonstrated no interaction by hormone receptor status, or nodal status on overall results (p for sub-group difference = 0.73, and 0.52, respectively). Odds of cardiac events increased significantly with 1 year of treatment. (table 1) Conclusion: Pooled analyses of RCTs demonstrated a significant improvement in overall, and disease-free survivals with 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab compared to shorter durations for adjuvant treatment of HER-2 positive breast cancer. One year of trastuzumab should remain as the standard of care. Cardiotoxicity increased significantly with the longer treatment. Hazard Ratios of Overall and Disease Free Survivals of 1 Year of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Compared to Shorter Durations in Treatment of HER2 positive Breast CancerOUTCOMESHAZARD RATIO95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALp (DIFFERENCE)INTERACTION TESTOVERALL SURVIVAL0.780.62 - 0.980.04DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL (DFS)0.800.70 - 0.930.004DFS - ESTROGEN RECEPTOR POSITIVE0.820.66 - 1.030.09CHI SQ. 0.12; p(SUBGROUP-DIFFERENCE)0.73DFS - ESTROGEN RECEPTOR NEGATIVE0.780.63 - 0.970.005DFS - NODE POSITIVE0.760.63 - 0.920.004CHI SQ. 0.42; p(SUBGROUP-DIFFERENCE)0.52DFS - NODE NEGATIVE0.870.60 - 1.260.46CARDIAC EVENTS2.65 (ODDS RATIO)2.00 - 3.50<0.001 . Citation Format: Niraula S, Gyawali B. Duration of adjuvant trastuzumab in HER-2 positive breast cancer: Pooled results of overall, and disease-free survivals from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-01.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.076
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→