MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PD6-04: Lifestyle intervention study (LISA) in early breast cancer (BC): An RCT of the effects of a telephone-based weight loss intervention (with educational materials) vs educational materials alone on disease-free survival (DFS)

2019· article· en· W2914874789 on OpenAlexaffabout
PJ Goodwin, Roanne Segal, Michael Vallis, JA Ligibel, Gregory R. Pond, A. Robidoux, BP Findlay, JR Gralow, SD Mukherjee, MN Levine, Kathleen I. Pritchard

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeight lossRandomized controlled trialBody mass indexBreast cancerTelephone counselingObesityOverweightInternal medicineCancerPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Obesity has been associated with poor BC outcomes. We investigated whether a standardized, telephone-based weight loss lifestyle intervention in recently diagnosed BC patients would lower recurrence and death rates. Methods: We conducted a multicenter RCT comparing mail-based educational material alone (control arm) or combined with a standardized, telephone-based lifestyle intervention (19 calls over 2 years, (intervention arm) that focused on diet (500-100 kcal/day deficit), physical activity (150-200 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week) and behavior (compliance, relapse prevention) to achieve up to 10% weight loss. 338 (of 2150 planned) T1-3, N0-3, M0 ER/PgR+ BC patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 24 kg/m2 receiving adjuvant letrozole were randomized Aug 2007 to Jan 2010 (enrolment ended due to funding loss). Primary outcome was DFS; secondary outcome OS. Weight loss (5.3 vs 0.7% at 6 months and 3.6 vs 0.4% at 24 months in the intervention vs control arms, respectively) has been reported (JCO 2014;32:2331). At 8 years median follow-up (May 2018), DFS and OS were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Mean age was 61.6 vs 60.4 years, mean BMI 31.4 vs 31.0 kg/m2 and adjuvant chemotherapy was received by 56.1 vs 57.5% in intervention vs controls arms respectively. T1/T2/T3 66.7/27.5/5.9% vs 61.7/33.5/3.6% and N0/1/2+ 62.6/28.7/8.8 vs 63.5/32.3/4.2% in intervention vs controls arms respectively. HER2+ in 8.8 vs 15.0% (intervention vs control). 20 of 171 (11.7%) in the lifestyle intervention arm vs 30 of 167 (18.0%) in the mail-based arm had DFS events, HR 0.71, 95%CI 0.41-1.24, p=0.23). DFS curves separated at 2 yrs; beyond 3-3.5 yrs separation approximated 5%. In a landmark DFS analysis of women alive at 24 months, DFS HR=0.68 (0.34-1.37, p=0.28). Conclusions: We identified fewer DFS events in the lifestyle intervention arm. Although loss of funding reduced sample size and lowered power, these results are consistent with a potential beneficial effect of a lifestyle intervention on DFS in postmenopausal ER/PgR+ BC patients. They provide strong support for completion of ongoing RCTs (e.g. BWEL) that will provide definitive evidence regarding the effect of lifestyle based weight loss on BC outcomes. Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Sponsored by the Ontario Clinical Oncology Group Citation Format: Goodwin PJ, Segal R, Vallis M, Ligibel JA, Pond GR, Robidoux A, Findlay BP, Gralow JR, Mukherjee SD, Levine MN, Pritchard KI. Lifestyle intervention study (LISA) in early breast cancer (BC): An RCT of the effects of a telephone-based weight loss intervention (with educational materials) vs educational materials alone on disease-free survival (DFS) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD6-04.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0050.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207