MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P2-11-01: Effects of radiotherapy on breast cancer outcomes among stage I, low-Recurrence risk, hormone-Sensitive breast cancer: Pooled analysis of individual data from phase III trials

2018· article· en· W2794244422 on OpenAlexaff
JC Jayasekera, Clyde B. Schechter, Reshma Jagsi, Julia White, J-AW Chapman, Timothy J. Whelan, JA Sparano, SJ Anderson, Anthony Fyles, Willi Sauerbrei, RC Zellars, Y Li, Juhee Song, Thomas B. Julian, Donald A. Berry, E. J. Feuer, George Luta, J. Mandelblatt

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyBreast cancerHazard ratioOncologyHormonal therapyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelClinical endpointConfidence intervalCancerHormone therapyMeta-analysisBreast-conserving surgeryRandomized controlled trialGynecologyMastectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: Radiotherapy after breast conservation has become the standard of care. Prior meta-analyses of radiotherapy benefits pre-dated availability of gene expression profiling (GEP) to assess recurrence risk and/or did not include all relevant outcomes. This analysis utilized GEP information with individual-level data from seven clinical trials to evaluate the impact of omitting radiotherapy on recurrence and mortality. Patients and Methods: The pooled observational data included women who had undergone breast conservation surgery for stage I, ER+ and/or PR+/HER2- cancers with clinicopathologically estimated 21-Gene Recurrence Scores (RS) of ≤ 18, and did not receive chemotherapy (n= 1,684). The primary endpoint was 10-year invasive or DCIS recurrence free-interval (IRFI-DCIS), including breast cancer death and was estimated using adjusted Cox models. Secondary outcomes were breast-cancer specific and all-cause survival. Covariates included for all models were age, tumor size, grade, hormonal status, type of hormonal therapy, risk score, and trial. Results: Ten-year IRFI-DCIS was high (96.6% with radiotherapy vs. 91.6% without), for an absolute difference of 5%. Omission of radiotherapy (vs. radiotherapy) was associated with an overall adjusted hazard ratio of 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5-4.5) for any first event. There was only a significant increase in risk of loco-regional; not, distant recurrence, breast cancer–specific or overall survival. The effect of radiotherapy varied across subgroups, with lower first event rates for those with estimated RS of <11 (vs. 11-18), and women ages 60+ (vs. <60 years). Conclusion: Omission of radiotherapy in hormone-sensitive patients with low recurrence risk may lead to a modest absolute increase in loco-regional recurrence, but does not appear to increase risk of distant recurrence or death. Citation Format: Jayasekera JC, Schechter C, Jagsi R, White J, Chapman J-AW, Whelan T, Sparano JA, Anderson SJ, Fyles A, Sauerbrei W, Zellars RC, Li Y, Song J, Julian T, Berry D, Feuer EJ, Luta G, Mandelblatt JS. Effects of radiotherapy on breast cancer outcomes among stage I, low-Recurrence risk, hormone-Sensitive breast cancer: Pooled analysis of individual data from phase III 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 P2-11-01.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.039
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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