Abstract P4-10-22: Patient reported symptoms and functional status in breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: To improve symptom management in cancer patients, the province of Ontario (Canada) implemented the collection of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and Patient-Reported Functional Status (PRFS) tool at cancer centre outpatient visits. ESAS measures 9 symptoms on a scale from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst possible symptom); scores > 4 (moderate to severe) require intervention. The PRFS tool is a version of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status tool designed to be completed by the patient; scores range from 0 (“normal with no limitation”) to 4 (“pretty much bedridden, rarely out of bed”). Our main objective was to describe the symptom burden and functional status of breast cancer (BC) patients.Methods: This cross-sectional study included women with stage I-IV BC who completed the ESAS and the PRFS tool during outpatient clinic visits at 2 Toronto academic centres. ESAS and PRFS scores were described for 3 participant groups: women diagnosed with early-stage BC (ESBC= stages I-III) in the year prior to enrolment; women with ESBC diagnosed > 1 year prior to enrolment; and women with metastatic BC. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with ESAS scores > 4 for each ESAS symptom. Covariates included age, comorbidity, BC subtype, disease group, previous surgery, and current systemic therapy. Results: Of 381 women, 107 (28%) were diagnosed with ESBC ≤ 1 year prior to enrolment; 171 (45%) were diagnosed with ESBC > 1 year prior to enrolment; 103 (27%) had metastatic BC. Mean age was 57 (SD17) years. For ESBC, tiredness had the highest incidence of moderate to severe scores, followed by impaired well-being and anxiety (Table 1). For metastatic BC, impaired well-being had the highest incidence of moderate to severe symptoms, followed by tiredness and anxiety. More than 20% of metastatic BC patients had scores > 4 for pain, drowsiness, shortness of breath and depression. Most reported PRFS scores of 0 (“Normal with no limitations”) or 1 (“Not my normal self, but able to be up and about with fairly normal activities”), but 17% of metastatic BC patients reported a PRFS of 2 (“Not feeling up to most things, but in bed or chair less than half the day”). A comorbidity score ≥1 was associated with moderate to severe depression (OR 2.0; 95%CI 1.1-3.7), lack of appetite (OR 3.1; 95%CI 1.4-6.6), shortness of breath (OR 2.6; 95%CI 1.3-5.2), tiredness (OR 2.0; 95%CI 1.2-3.3) and impaired well-being (OR 2.0; 95%CI 1.2-3.4). Metastatic BC was associated with moderate to severe scores for anxiety (OR 2.3; 95%CI 1.2-4.5), pain (OR 3.0; 95%CI 1.4-6.4) and impaired well-being (OR 2.1; 95%CI 1.1-4.0). Conclusion: A high prevalence of symptom scores > 4 was found both in ESBC and metastatic BC, highlighting the need of symptom screening for all BC patients. Particular attention should be paid to patients with comorbidity scores ≥ 1, who have increased odds of presenting higher symptom scores. Table 1.- Prevalence of ESAS scores ≥ 4 and PRFS scores for each disease group.ESAS SymptomsPercent with ESAS scores ≥ 4 (moderate to severe)Early-Stage Breast Cancer – 1st year (N=107)Early-Stage Breast Cancer – > 1st year (N=171)Metastatic Breast Cancer (N=103)Total (N=381)Pain12.1%14.7%30.1%18.2%Tiredness25.2%30.1%39.8%31.3%Drowsiness1.8%12.9%25.2%16.6%Nausea9.4%3.5%7.8%4.2%Lack of Appetite10.3%7.1%13.6%9.5%Shortness of Breath14%7.6%22.3%12.4%Depression17.7%14.6%22.6%16.5%Anxiety24.3%17.2%35.3%21.3%Well-being1.8%25.7%44.1%30.3%PRFS scoresPercent with PRFS ScoreNormal with no limitations (0)30.8%49.7%28.2%38.6%Not my normal self, but able to be up and about with fairly normal activities (1)52.3%42.1%50.5%47.2%Not feeling up to most things, but in bed or chair less than half the day (2)12.2%4.7%16.5%10%Able to do little activity and spend most of the day in bed or chair (3)3.7%2.3%4.9%3.4%Pretty much bedridden, rarely out of bed (4)---- Citation Format: Sofia Torres, Ahmed Bayoumi, Geoffrey Liu, Ana Beatriz Kinupe Abrahao, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Murray Krahn, Maureen Trudeau. Patient reported symptoms and functional status in breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-22.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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 teacher head, 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".