The impact of new systemic therapies on survival and time on hormonal treatment in hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer: A population‐based study in British Columbia from 2003 to 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether new systemic therapy regimens have resulted in improved survival and increased time on first- and second-line hormonal treatment for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) over time. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative MBC were identified across 3 time cohorts (2003-2005, 2007-2009, and 2011-2013). Data were prospectively collected. Cases with previous, synchronous, or subsequent contralateral breast cancer were excluded. The types of first- and second-line therapies, the times on first- and second-line hormonal treatment, and the median survival times were compared across the cohorts. RESULTS: Within the time period analyzed, 9 new adjuvant systemic therapies (with or without neoadjuvant therapy) and 2 metastatic systemic therapies were approved at BC Cancer for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC. In the 3 time cohorts, 3953 patients diagnosed with MBC were identified. Among the 2432 patients (62%) who had HR-positive/HER2-negative disease, 2197 (90%) received at least 1 line of systemic therapy after the diagnosis of MBC, and 80% of these patients (1752 of 2197) received first- and/or second-line hormonal treatment. The median duration on hormonal treatment was 9.0 months for the first line and 6.1 months for the second line. The durations were similar across the time cohorts (range for the first line, 8.9-9.0 months; range for the second line, 6.0-6.1 months). The median survival for the entire study population was 2.0 years (95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.1 years), and there was no significant difference between the cohorts (range, 1.9-2.0 years). CONCLUSIONS: Even though more adjuvant and metastatic systemic therapies have been approved since 2003, population-level gains in survival and the time on hormonal treatment for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC have not been made over the course of a decade.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".