MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of fertility preservation by ovarian stimulation on breast cancer outcomes.

2017· article· en· W2890098668 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ying Wang, Shaina Lee, Pierre Camateros, Kirstin Perdrizet, Daniel Yokom, Ellen Warner, J. P. Roberts, Caroline Lohrisch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFertility preservationBreast cancerOvarian cancerOvarian reserveOncologyInternal medicineStimulationCancerGynecologyChemotherapyFertilityPopulationInfertilityPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e21588 Background: Chemotherapy and hormone therapy results in potential ovarian toxicity and delay in child-bearing among women of reproductive age with breast cancer. Whether short term ovarian stimulation is safe is not well studied. We examined the effects of short-term ovarian stimulation on patients’ breast cancer recurrence rates. Methods: Women diagnosed with localized breast cancer between 2005 and 2011 at any one of five cancer centres and referred to a reproductive endocrinologist in British Columbia, Canada, were identified from a central database. Clinical, pathological, treatment, and outcome characteristics were compared for patients who did and did not undergo ovarian stimulation prior to systemic cancer treatment. Results: Seventy-seven patients were included: median age was 33, all were ECOG 0/1, 31 (40%) had lymph node involvement, 62 (81%) had estrogen receptor (ER) positive disease, and 18 (23%) had HER2 positive disease. Thirty-four (44%) women underwent ovarian stimulation: they were more likely to receive chemotherapy than patients who declined ovarian stimulation (p = 0.001). Age, number of existing children, radiation, and hormonal treatments were not significantly associated with decision to undergo ovarian stimulation (p > 0.05). After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, 7 (21%) patients who pursued ovarian stimulation and 9 (21%) patients who did not experienced disease recurrence. There was no association between ovarian stimulation and rate of local or distant breast cancer recurrence (p = 0.658). Conclusions: We did not find a harmful effect of short term ovarian stimulation on breast cancer recurrence rates. Limitations include short follow-up, a small sample size, and few relapses. Patients who received chemotherapy were more likely to pursue ovarian stimulation, suggesting that patients were well informed about the negative impact on fertility of chemotherapy and of the importance of fertility preservation prior to potentially gonado-toxic treatments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicReproductive Biology and Fertility→French-language works237,207→