Changes in weight, physical and psychosocial patient-reported outcomes among obese women receiving treatment for early-stage breast cancer: A nationwide clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Evidence on how weight loss correlates to health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) among obese breast cancer (BC) patients is limited. We aimed to evaluate associations between weight changes and HRQOL. Methods We included 993 obese women with stage I-II-III BC from CANTO, a multicenter, prospective cohort collecting longitudinal, objectively-assessed anthropometric measures and HRQOL data (NCT01993498). Associations between weight changes (±5% between diagnosis and post-treatment [shortly after completion of surgery, adjuvant chemo- or radiation-therapy]) and patient-reported HRQOL (EORTC QLQ-C30/B23) were comprehensively evaluated. Changes in HRQOL and odds of severely impaired HRQOL were assessed using multivariable generalized estimating equations and logistic regression, respectively. Results 14.1% women gained weight, 67.3% remained stable and 18.6% lost weight. Significant decreases in functional status and exacerbation of symptoms were observed overall post-treatment. Compared to gaining weight or remaining stable, obese women who lost weight experienced less of a decline in HRQOL, reporting better physical function (mean change [95%CI] for gain, stability and loss: −12.9 [-16.5,-9.3], −6.9 [-8.2,-5.5] and −6.2 [-8.7,-3.7]; p interaction[weight-change-by-time] = 0.006), less dyspnea (+18.9 [+12.3,+25.6], +9.2 [+6.5,+11.9] and +3.2 [-1.0,+7.3]; p interaction = 0.0003), and fewer breast symptoms (+22.1 [+16.8,+27.3], +18.0 [+15.7,+20.3] and +13.4 [+9.0,+17.2]; p interaction = 0.044). Weight loss was also significantly associated with reduced odds of severe pain compared with weight gain (OR [95%CI] = 0.51 [0.31–0.86], p = 0.011) or stability (OR [95%CI] = 0.62 [0.41–0.95], p = 0.029). No associations between weight loss and worsening of other physical or psychosocial parameters were found. Conclusions This large contemporary study suggests that weight loss among obese BC patients during early survivorship was associated with better patient-reported outcomes, without evidence of worsened functionality or symptomatology in any domain of HRQOL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".