Safety of Continuing Trastuzumab Despite Mild Cardiotoxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety of continuing trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-positive breast cancer who developed mild cardiotoxicity. BACKGROUND: Cardiotoxicity is the most common dose-limiting toxicity associated with trastuzumab. Current standard of care is discontinuation of trastuzumab, which can lead to worse cancer outcomes. It is unknown whether it is safe to continue trastuzumab despite mild cardiotoxicity. METHODS: Patients were eligible for this phase I, prospective, single-arm trial if left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was between 40% and the lower limit of normal or if it fell ≥15% from baseline. Participants were treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and/or beta-blockers in a cardio-oncology clinic and were followed clinically and with serial echocardiograms for 1 year. The primary outcome was cardiac dose-limiting toxicity, defined as cardiovascular death, LVEF <40% together with any heart failure symptoms, or LVEF <35%. RESULTS: All 20 participants received ACE inhibitors and/or beta-blockers. A total of 18 participants (90%) received all planned trastuzumab doses. Two (10%) participants developed cardiac dose-limiting toxicity (heart failure with LVEF <40%). Their LVEF and heart failure symptoms improved to nearly normal following permanent trastuzumab discontinuation. There were no deaths. LVEF rose progressively from a mean of 49% at enrollment to 55% at 12 months (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: It may be feasible to continue trastuzumab despite mild cardiotoxicity in the setting of a cardio-oncology clinic, where ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers are administered. Approximately 10% of patients may develop moderate to severe heart failure using this approach. (Safety of Continuing Chemotherapy in Overt Left Ventricular Dysfunction Using Antibodies to Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 [SCHOLAR]; NCT02907021).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".