MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Supporting patients with metastatic breast cancer during therapy with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK) inhibitors: A needs assessment.

2022· article· en· W4281773151 on OpenAlexaff
Ciara C. O’Sullivan, Ginny Jacobs, Domingo Gregorio Perez, Katrina Jackson, Bethany Schowengerdt, Patrice Lazure, Pam McFadden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsAxdev Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalbociclibDiscontinuationOncologyBreast cancerInternal medicineMetastatic breast cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e13054 Background: Combination therapy with cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i: palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib) and endocrine therapy (ET) has markedly improved treatment of hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2-negative (-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) worldwide.However, data is limited on why patients may discontinue CDK4/6i based therapy and how healthcare providers (HCPs) see their role in educating patients (Px) about side effects and supporting compliance. Objective: This study identifies reasons for suboptimal compliance and early discontinuation of CDK4/6i in US HR+ HER2- MBC Px, with a focus on HCPs and Px educational needs related to on-treatment monitoring, side effects and symptom management. Methods: A sequential mixed-methods design was used; 45-minute phone interviews (n=25) informed the development of an online survey (n=193). Both phases included HCPs comprising medical oncologists (ONCs), oncology registered nurses (RNs), nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) in community-based settings. Results: Identified areas of improvement for HCPs included: suboptimal competencies were identified: educating Px adequately regarding potential side effects and engaging them to monitor, report, and address them. Among HCPs surveyed, 26%-48% reported suboptimal knowledge of side effects of specific CDK4/6i [Table]. Interviewees noted that educating Px and setting expectations on potential side effects was critical, but 52% of ONCs reported suboptimal skill doing so. A majority of HCPs (68%-91%) expect Px to be able to report all side effects, with half of ONCs considering compliance with medication entirely Pxs’ responsibility, compared with NPs/PAs and RNs at 16-17%. Conclusions: This study identified areas where HCPs can improve their ability to counsel Px and address concerns that may influence a Px’s decision to prematurely discontinue therapy and should be used to inform future professional development initiatives. [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207