Quality of life in patients with breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this systematic review were to assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on breast cancer (BC) patients' quality of life (QOL), to compare the different regimens of NAC on BC patients' QOL, to compare NAC versus adjuvant chemotherapy on BC patients' QOL and to identify predictors of QOL on patients with BC receiving NAC. DESIGN: The design used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Cinahl, Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library and PsycINFO were searched through 27 December 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: The inclusion criteria were included: patients with BC receiving NAC, outcome measures related to QOL and published in English. The exclusion criteria were included: duplicates or overlapping participants, not original research, data or full text not available and qualitative study. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies. The risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated with Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk bias, Newcastle Ottawa Score or Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. This systematic review performs narrative synthesis based on several different themes. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 2994 studies; 12 of these studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in the QOL of BC before and after NAC, but patients experienced adverse reactions and depression during chemotherapy. Different regimens of NAC have different effects on patients' QOL. Patients with NAC had more severe physical discomfort than those with adjuvant chemotherapy. However, BC patients' QOL can be improved by intervening on social or family support, and these predictors, including chronotype, QOL before NAC and depression. CONCLUSIONS: More original research is needed in future to understand the profile and predictors of QOL in patients with BC on NAC, which will help clinicians and patients make decisions and deal with NAC-related issues.
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".