Abstract P1-16-05: Prognosis and survival in metastatic breast cancer – Ten years in review, a population-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The rapidly evolving landscape of systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) during the 1990s led to meaningful improvements in the overall survival (OS) of MBC patients[1]. Despite ongoing and expanded access to new treatments, it remains unclear if this has translated into further advances in survival. Moreover, the prognosis of MBC patients based on subtype, over time, are also important to differentiate. Methods: The BC Cancer Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit (BCOU) database was utilized to identify patients referred to BC Cancer who were diagnosed with MBC during 3 time cohorts (cohort 1:2003-2005; cohort 2:2007-2009; cohort 3:2011-2013), to reflect changes in MBC treatment over these separate time periods. Baseline clinical and pathological criteria were compiled, in addition to adjuvant treatments received, as well as number of lines of treatment in the metastatic setting. OS was compared across time cohorts for all patients and then between subtypes using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results: A total of 3,953 patients met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 2,440 (61.7%) estrogen-receptor positive (ER+), 778 (19.7%) HER2 positive and 542 (13.7%) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. One hundred and ninety-three patients (4.9%) were unable to be subtyped and were therefore excluded from the analysis . A total of 2,205 (90.4%) ER+ patients received at least 1 line of systemic therapy, with 80.0% receiving at least 1 line of hormonal therapy. The median time on hormonal treatment was 8.9 months (range 0.03 - 156.7) for first-line and 6.1 months (range 0.1 – 173.3) for second-line. In the HER2+ group, 665 (85.5%) patients received at least 1 line of treatment, with a median of 2 lines of treatment (range 1-16). Median duration of anti-HER2 treatment was 6.7 months (range 0.03 - 163.8) with a median of 1 line of anti-HER2 directed treatment (range 1-5). For TNBC patients, 357 (65.9%) received at least 1 line of treatment, with a median of 2 (range 1-10). No significant differences in OS were observed between the 3 time cohorts, with a median overall survival (mOS) of 1.63 years, 1.37 years and 1.57 years in cohorts 1-3, respectively (p=0.12).When comparing across subtypes, the ER+ group faired best with a mOS of 1.96 years (95% CI 1.8-2.1), consistent across time cohorts (p=0.72). This was followed by the HER2+ group with a mOS of 1.53 years (95% CI 1.3-1.7), also consistent across time cohorts (p=0.31). The TNBC group faired worst, with a mOS of 0.67 years (95% CI 0.6-0.8) over time (p=0.87). Conclusions: Despite advances in systemic therapy since the early 2000s, no meaningful improvements in overall survival were observed over time, regardless of subtype. It remains to be seen if developments since 2013 will lead to gains in overall survival for MBC patients, at a real life, population-based level. [1]Chia SK, Speers CH, D'yachkova Y, et al. Cancer 2007;110:973-979. Citation Format: LeVasseur N, Fiorino L, Speers CH, Aparicio M, Lohrisch C, Chia SK. Prognosis and survival in metastatic breast cancer – Ten years in review, a population-based analysis [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 P1-16-05.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".