Dietary Supplement Use During Chemotherapy and Survival Outcomes of Patients With Breast Cancer Enrolled in a Cooperative Group Clinical Trial (SWOG S0221)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Despite reported widespread use of dietary supplements during cancer treatment, few empirical data with regard to their safety or efficacy exist. Because of concerns that some supplements, particularly antioxidants, could reduce the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy, we conducted a prospective study ancillary to a therapeutic trial to evaluate associations between supplement use and breast cancer outcomes. METHODS Patients with breast cancer randomly assigned to an intergroup metronomic trial of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and paclitaxel were queried on their use of supplements at registration and during treatment (n =1,134). Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for clinical and lifestyle variables was used. Recurrence and survival were indexed at 6 months after enrollment using a landmark approach. RESULTS There were indications that use of any antioxidant supplement (vitamins A, C, and E; carotenoids; coenzyme Q10) both before and during treatment was associated with an increased hazard of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR], 1.41; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.04; P = .06) and, to a lesser extent, death (adjHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.90 to 2.18; P = .14). Relationships with individual antioxidants were weaker perhaps because of small numbers. For nonantioxidants, vitamin B12 use both before and during chemotherapy was significantly associated with poorer disease-free survival (adjHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.92; P < .01) and overall survival (adjHR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.22 to 3.40; P < .01). Use of iron during chemotherapy was significantly associated with recurrence (adjHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.67; P < .01) as was use both before and during treatment (adjHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.98 to 3.70; P = .06). Results were similar for overall survival. Multivitamin use was not associated with survival outcomes. CONCLUSION Associations between survival outcomes and use of antioxidant and other dietary supplements both before and during chemotherapy are consistent with recommendations for caution among patients when considering the use of supplements, other than a multivitamin, during chemotherapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".