Effect of Chemotherapy on Removal of Indwelling Pleural Catheters in Breast Cancer Patients with Malignant Pleural Effusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indwelling pleural catheters (IPC) are commonly used in the management of malignant pleural effusions (MPE). The effect of systemic chemotherapy on IPC removal has not been reported previously. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to identify the effect of chemotherapy on the removal of IPCs in breast cancer patients with MPEs. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study at an academic tertiary-care center, patients with breast cancer and MPE who received an IPC between 2006 and 2016 were identified from a prospectively collected database. Patient chemotherapy data were obtained, as well estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status at the time of diagnosis. Patients receiving chemotherapy while their IPC was in situ were compared to those who did not. The primary outcome was time to IPC removal. All patients were followed until IPC removal or death. RESULTS: A total of 207 patients and 216 IPCs were included in the analysis. There was no difference in time to IPC removal between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.07, p = 0.10) or rate of IPC removal (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.68-1.98, p = 0.59). The risk of IPC infection was not different between patients who received chemotherapy and those who did not (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.06-5.39, p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with chemotherapy with an IPC in situ was not associated with a reduced time to IPC removal in our breast cancer population. IPC insertion in patients receiving chemotherapy is safe and not associated with an increased risk of infection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".