Risk-Imaging Mismatch in Cardiac Imaging Practices for Women Receiving Systemic Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To assess prechemotherapy cardiac imaging practices in relation to patients’ heart failure (HF) risk. Methods We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of women receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer in Ontario between 2007 and 2012. We surveyed for baseline cardiac imaging 6 months before chemotherapy or within 30 days thereafter. The proportion of patients who underwent imaging and cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates was determined based on chemotherapy regimen and HF risk factors. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of pretreatment cardiac imaging. Results We studied 18,444 women who had been treated with chemotherapy (median age, 55 years). There was near-universal imaging of women treated with trastuzumab-containing regimens, including those without additional HF risk factors. Women who received anthracyclines without trastuzumab underwent imaging more frequently if they had additional HF risk factors (73.3% v 62.6%; P < .001). The 5-year incidence of MACE was two to six times higher in patients with HF risk factors across all treatment regimens. Patients with HF risk factors who received anthracyclines without trastuzumab had a higher 5-year incidence of MACE (4.5%) than patients without HF risk factors who received trastuzumab without anthracyclines (2.6%). However, cardiac imaging was less frequent in the former group (73.3% v 93.6%; P < .001). Logistic regression indicated that most variation in baseline imaging was related to chemotherapy, followed by physician-level factors. The odds of imaging were doubled with female physicians. Patient-specific factors, including HF risk factors, made minimal contribution to variation in imaging. Conclusion Baseline cardiac imaging was driven by chemotherapy regimen rather than HF risk. This risk-imaging mismatch is an impetus to reconsider current cardiac imaging practices in patients who receive chemotherapy for breast cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".