Willingness of Women with Early Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer to Take Adjuvant CDK4/6 Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The steady decline in breast cancer (bca) mortality has come at the cost of increasingly toxic and expensive adjuvant therapies. Trials evaluating the addition of 2 or 3 years of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (cdk4/6) inhibitors to adjuvant endocrine therapy (et) are ongoing, but the willingness of patients to take such additional therapy is unknown. Methods: We surveyed 100 consecutive postmenopausal women with nonmetastatic estrogen receptor-positive bca who had initiated adjuvant et within the preceding 2 years. Participants were asked about perceived recurrence risk, bca worry, and overall health. They were then asked about their willingness to accept 2 years of treatment with an additional oral drug that would reduce recurrence by 40% for a range of baseline recurrence risks in 2 hypothetical scenarios. Results: Mean age of the 99 evaluable participants was 61.7 years. In the scenario with no drug toxicity, 85% of respondents were likely to accept the new drug for a reduction in recurrence to 30% from 50%, but only 49% would take the drug if risk was reduced to 3% from 5%. In a scenario with drug-induced fatigue, the corresponding drug acceptance rates were 55% and 39% respectively. For the second scenario, bca worry was correlated with increased willingness to take the drug, even for only a 2% absolute reduction in recurrence risk. Conclusions: The willingness of patients with estrogen receptor-positive bca to take an adjuvant cdk4/6 inhibitor will greatly depend on the expected benefit and toxicities described to them as well as on worry about bca recurrence.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".