MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119952631 · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2020.7606

Body Mass Index and Weight Change in Patients With HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Exploratory Analysis of the ALTTO BIG 2-06 Trial

2021· article· en· W3119952631 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Martel, Matteo Lambertini, Dominique Agbor‐Tarh, Noam Pondé, Andrea Gombos, Vicki Paterson, Florentine Hilbers, Larissa A. Korde, Anna Manukyants, Amylou C. Dueck, Christian Maurer, Martine Piccart, Alvaro Moreno‐Aspitia, Christine Desmedt, Serena Di Cosimo, Evandro de Azambuja

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUnderweightOverweightBody mass indexBreast cancerHazard ratioWeight changeInternal medicineWeight lossObesityCancerWeight gainRandomizationOncologyRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The association between obesity and prognosis in HER2-positive early breast cancer remains unclear, with limited data available. This study aimed to determine the impact of body mass index (BMI) at baseline and weight change after 2 years on outcomes of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. METHODS: ALTTO was a randomized phase III trial in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. BMI was collected at randomization and 2 years after. WHO BMI categories were used: underweight, <18.5 kg/m2; normal weight, 18.5 to <25 kg/m2; overweight, ≥25 to <30 kg/m2; and obese ≥30 kg/m2. A weight change from baseline of ≥5.0% and ≤5.0% was categorized as weight gain and weight loss. The impact of BMI at randomization and of weight change on disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS) were investigated with multivariate analyses, adjusting for baseline patients and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 8,381 patients were included: 187 (2.2%), 3,797 (45.3%), 2,690 (32.1%), and 1,707 (20.4%) were underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese at baseline, respectively. Compared with normal weight, being obese at randomization was associated with a significantly worse DDFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50) and OS (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60), but no significant difference in DFS (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97-1.32). Weight loss ≥5.0% at 2 years after randomization was associated with significantly poorer DFS (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.05-1.71), DDFS (aHR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07-1.98), and OS (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.18-2.84). Hormone receptor and menopausal status but not anti-HER2 treatment type influenced outcomes. Toxicities were more frequent in obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, obesity at baseline is a poor prognostic factor. Weight loss during treatment and follow-up negatively impacts clinical outcomes. Dietary counseling should be part of survivorship care programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207