MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of outcomes in a population-based cohort of women with metastatic breast cancer receiving anti-HER2 therapy with clinical trial outcomes.

2019· article· en· W2947072656 on OpenAlexaffabout
Inna Y. Gong, Andrew T. Yan, Maureen Trudeau, Andrea Eisen, Craig C. Earle, Kelvin Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCohortPertuzumabPopulationRandomized controlled trialMetastatic breast cancerBreast cancerCancerCancer registryTrastuzumabRetrospective cohort studyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1037 Background: Little data exist for comparing cardiac safety and survival outcomes of anti-HER2 therapy with concurrent trastuzumab (T) and pertuzumab (P) or ado-T emtansine (TDM1) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients enrolled in randomized clinical trial (RCT) vs those in the real world. Furthermore, whether older patients have worse outcomes is unknown. Methods: This was a retrospective population-based cohort of all women with MBC treated with concurrent T with P or TDM1 in Ontario (between 2012 and 2017), identified from New Drug Funding Program and linked to Ontario Cancer Registry and other administrative datasets. Outcomes were incident heart failure (HF, defined as hospitalization or emergency room visit for HF) and overall survival (OS). RCT data were obtained from digitizing survival curves as per established methods and compared with cohort OS data using log-rank test. Age based comparison of outcomes was conducted for women ≥ 65 years old vs younger. Results: Our cohort composed of 833 (28% > 64 years old), and 397 (28% > 64 years old) women treated with P and TDM1, respectively, of which 46 and 30 had baseline HF, respectively. 49% and 99.5% of women received T prior to P and TDM1, respectively. Incident HF following P or TDM1 initiation was low (P 26 women, TDM1 8 women; Table). HF events was not more in women ≥ 65 years old compared to women < 65 treated with P (16 vs. 10, p = 0.23). Unadjusted OS was significantly worse than RCT OS (Table; P HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.37-2.03, p < 0.0001; TDM1 HR 2.80, 95% CI 2.27-3.44, p < 0.0001). Older women had worse OS than younger women for P (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22-1.96, p = 0.0003), but not for TDM1 (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81-1.43, p = 0.62). Conclusions: HF incidence during P or TDM1 therapy in this real world cohort was relatively low. Survival in this cohort was significantly worse compared to RCT, particularly for older women, suggesting importance of evaluating effectiveness in an unselected patient population to facilitate informed decision-making based on real-world risks and survival outcomes.[Table: see text]

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.392 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207