MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Do all patients with HER2-positive breast cancer require one year of adjuvant trastuzumab?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2019· review· en· W2947403106 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Stewart, Phillip Blanchette, Prakesh S. Shah, Xiang Y. Ye, Gabriel Boldt, Ricardo Fernandes, Theodore A. Vandenberg, Jacques Raphael

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreCancer Care OntarioMount Sinai HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrastuzumabInternal medicineMeta-analysisHazard ratioBreast cancerOncologyRandomized controlled trialAdjuvantCochrane LibraryAdjuvant therapySubgroup analysisCancerGynecologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

522 Background: One year of adjuvant trastuzumab (T) remains the standard treatment for patients with HER2 positive breast cancer. Results from randomized trials with diverse non-inferiority margins comparing one year to a shorter duration of adjuvant T were not consistent, particularly with the PERSEPHONE and the final PHARE and Short-HER trials’ results. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials in patients with HER2 positive breast cancer to assess whether a shorter duration of adjuvant T was non-inferior to one year of treatment. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched for eligible randomized trials. Hazard ratios (HR) for disease free and overall survival (DFS, OS) were weighted using generic inverse variance and pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. The median of non-inferiority margins derived from each trial was calculated to set a non-inferiority margin of 1.29 for the pooled analysis. Subgroup analyses compared survival outcomes by estrogen receptor (ER) status, nodal status, length and timing of trastuzumab treatment. Results: Data of 11,376 patients from 5 trials were analyzed. A shorter duration of T was non-inferior to one year of therapy for DFS (HR 1.13, 95%CI 1.03-1.24) but worse for OS (HR 1.16, 95%CI 1.01-1.32). In addition, the non-inferiority for DFS was met for patients with ER positive disease (HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.95-1.28) and patients treated with 6 months (HR 1.09, 95%CI 0.98-1.22) or sequential T (HR 0.97, 95%CI 0.75-1.27). Conversely, the non-inferiority for DFS was not met for patients with ER negative disease (HR 1.22, 95%CI 1.06-1.41), patients treated with 9 weeks (HR 1.26, 95%CI 1.02-1.55) or concomitant T (HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.07-1.45) and patients with node negative (HR 1.12, 95% 0.93-1.35) or positive (HR 1.16, 95%CI 0.99-1.36) disease. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the available data and the different non-inferiority margins used in randomized trials, a shorter duration of adjuvant T is non-inferior to one year of therapy for DFS in patients with HER2 positive breast cancer, particularly in patients with ER positive disease. Further trials with appropriately chosen non-inferiority margins are needed to confirm the optimal duration of T in patients with low-risk disease.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→