MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract PS1-50: Locoregional therapy in de novo metastatic breast cancer: Systemic review and meta-analysis

2021· article· en· W3130574885 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Reinhorn, Raz Mutai, Rinat Yerushalmi, Assaf Moore, Eitan Amir, Hadar Goldvaser

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineHazard ratioOncologySystemic therapyMetastatic breast cancerPopulationSubgroup analysisRandomizationCancerRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: De novo metastatic breast cancer represents around 6% of breast cancer diagnoses. Retrospective data suggest that locoregional therapy (LRT) for the primary breast cancer in metastatic disease may improve outcomes. Randomized control trials (RCTs) have evaluated the role of LRT in this setting with inconsistent results. Methods: We searched PubMed to identify RCTs that compared LRT and standard systemic therapy to standard therapy alone in de novo metastatic breast cancer. The search was supplemented by a review of abstracts from key conferences. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed and pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse variance. Overall survival (OS) data were extracted for the intention to treat (ITT) population and for pre-specified subgroups defined by tumor subtype and by site of metastases. Subgroup analysis evaluated the effect of systemic treatment prior randomization to LRT. Results: Analyses included 4 trials comprising 970 patients. LRT included standard surgery to the primary breast tumor in all studies, and adjuvant radiation per standard of care was mandatory in 3 studies. Systemic treatment prior randomization showed similar results (HR=0.92 and HR=1.06 for upfront LRT and LRT following systemic treatment, respectively, p for the subgroup difference=0.72). LRT was not associated with improved OS in the ITT population (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.29, p=0.81). LRT was not associated with improved OS in any tumor subtypes, including hormone receptor positive (HR for OS= 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.43, p=0.85), triple negative (HR 1.4, 95% CI 0.50-3.91, p=0.52) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive disease (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.28, p=0.67). Additionally, LRT did not improve OS in bone only disease (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58-1.62, p=0.92) and in visceral disease (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.35, p=0.90). Conclusions: LRT in de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved OS. Results are consistent among different breast cancer subgroups. Citation Format: Daniel Jack Reinhorn, Raz Mutai, Rinat Yerushalmi, Assaf Moore, Eitan Amir, Hadar Goldvaser. Locoregional therapy in de novo metastatic breast cancer: Systemic review and meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-50.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.034
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→