Comparing docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) concomitant with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in the treatment of breast cancer (DHA WIN): protocol of a double-blind, phase II, randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer treatment is prescribed to facilitate surgery and provide confirmation of drug-sensitive disease, and the achievement of pathological complete response (pCR) predicts improved long-term outcomes. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) has been shown to reduce tumour growth in preclinical models when combined with chemotherapy and is known to beneficially modulate systemic immune function. The purpose of this trial is to investigate the benefit of DHA supplementation in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a double-blind, phase II, randomised controlled trial of 52 women prescribed neoadjuvant chemotherapy to test if DHA supplementation enhances chemotherapy efficacy. The DHA supplementation group will take 4.4 g/day DHA orally, and the placebo group will take an equal fat supplement of vegetable oil. The primary outcome will be change in Ki67 labelling index from prechemotherapy core needle biopsy to definitive surgical specimen. The secondary endpoints include assessment of (1) DHA plasma phospholipid content; (2) systemic immune cell types, plasma cytokines and inflammatory markers; (3) tumour markers for apoptosis and tumour infiltrating lymphocytes; (4) rate of pCR in breast and in axillary nodes; (5) frequency of grade 3 and 4 chemotherapy-associated toxicities; and (6) patient-perceived quality of life. The trial has 81% power to detect a significant between-group difference in Ki67 index with a two-sided t-test of less than 0.0497, and accounts for 10% dropout rate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has full approval from the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta - Cancer Committee (Protocol #: HREBA.CC-18-0381). We expect to present the findings of this study to the scientific community in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences. The results of this study will provide evidence for supplementing with DHA during neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03831178.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".