Clinical practice patterns on the use of adjuvant bisphosphonate for early breast cancer: A Canadian perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e12002 Background: Adjuvant bisphosphonates (ABPs) in menopausal women with early breast cancer (EBC) decrease the risk of BC relapse and modestly improve overall survival (OS). In the era of personalized medicine, a one size fits all approach is not ideal–it is important to identify the subgroup of patients who may not derive a clinically meaningful benefit to avoid over treatment, unnecessary toxicity, and optimize resource utilization. Objectives: To better characterize how Canadian medical oncologists (MOs) use ABPs and whether practice patterns are concordant with the CCO/ASCO guideline. Methods: A brief survey was circulated by e-mail to 618 Canadian MOs between Nov 2017 - May 2018. Questions were designed to gather data on demographics, patient selection, choice of bisphosphonate, schedule/duration of treatment and barriers to use. No incentive was provided. Results: Sixty-eight MOs from 8 Canadian provinces completed the survey (response rate 11.0%). Most practiced in Ontario (65.7%) and just over half (51.5%) were community oncologists. MOs offered ABPs to 52.2% of menopausal women with EBC. Use was higher in the community compared to the academic setting (p=0.049). Most used zoledronic acid (85.3%) every 6 months (95.6%) for 3 years (69.1%) and started treatment within 3 months of completing adjuvant chemotherapy/radiation (67.7%). Factors associated with use of ABPs were: high Oncotype Dx score (89.1%), high tumor grade (72.1%), triple negative disease (63.6%), osteoporosis (87.7%)/osteopenia (83.9%) and use of aromatase Inhibitor (75.0%). The most common factor precluding use of ABPs was presence of comorbidities (89.7%). About 1/3rd indicated they would offer ABPs to women with stage I HR positive/Her2 negative EBC. Conclusions: Canadian MOs have added intravenous ABPs to their armamentarium of therapies in keeping with the spirit of the recent guideline. High-risk disease features and low bone density appear to be influencing the decision-making process. Further work aimed at identifying those patients who are unlikely to benefit from treatment is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".