MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P4-16-06: Radiotherapy to the Primary Tumor Is Associated with Improved Survival in Stage IV Breast Cancer

2012· article· en· W2944539547 on OpenAlexaff
SC Morgan, J-M Caudrelier, MJ Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End ResultsRetrospective cohort studyUnivariate analysisRadiation therapyProportional hazards modelPopulationHazard ratioCancerStage (stratigraphy)EpidemiologyExternal beam radiotherapyMultivariate analysisOncologyInternal medicineSurgeryCancer registryConfidence intervalBrachytherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In patients found to have metastatic disease at the time of breast cancer diagnosis, the role of local therapy is undefined. Numerous retrospective analyses have suggested that surgery and/or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) directed at the primary tumor may improve overall survival (OS). All these analyses, however, are subject to significant selection bias. The current retrospective analysis of a large registry dataset attempts to limit the effect of this bias. Methods: The study population consisted of women in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program database diagnosed with stage IV breast cancer between 1988 and 2009. Only those patients for whom surgery to the primary tumor was recommended but was not undertaken (due to patient refusal or other uncategorized reasons) were included. In this population of patients deemed candidates for surgery, the association between receipt of primary tumor-directed EBRT and overall survival was studied. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to identify factors associated with OS. Results: A total of 3,529 cases were analyzed. EBRT was received in 768 cases. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (IQR, 56–79 years). Median follow-up by reverse KM estimate was 98 months (range, 0–252 months). On univariate analysis, EBRT was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.74–0.87, p < 0.001). 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS was 56.9%, 24.2%, and 10.7% respectively in those receiving EBRT and 44.3%, 16.6%, and 7.2% respectively in those not receiving EBRT. Median OS in those receiving EBRT was 15 months compared to 7 months in those not receiving EBRT. In a multivariate Cox model taking into account receipt of EBRT, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, ethnicity, number of primary cancers, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, histologic grade, and size of primary tumor, EBRT remained significantly associated with improved survival (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.76–0.97, p = 0.011). Conclusions: In a population of women presenting with metastatic breast cancer, all of whom were deemed candidates for surgery to the primary tumor but who did not undergo surgery, receipt of EBRT was associated with improved OS. The observed 8-month absolute difference in median OS is clinically significant. This analysis could not account for performance status, extent of metastatic disease, co-morbidities, use of systemic therapies, and other potentially confounding factors. Only randomized studies, such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E2108 trial currently underway, will be able to definitively assess the value of local therapy directed at the primary tumor in this setting. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-16-06.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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