Abstract PO5-18-02: A Population-Based Analysis of the Impact of Omission of Anthracyclines in the Neoadjuvant Setting on the Risk of Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Most patients with high-risk non-metastatic breast cancer are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which includes the administration of anthracyclines. The omission of anthracyclines was shown to be associated with excellent outcomes in selected patients. However, the extent to which anthracyclines are omitted among a population of women treated with NAC and its impact on mortality remain unclear. Objective To investigate the extent to which anthracyclines are omitted among a population of patients with invasive breast cancer treated with NAC and to examine the impact of non-anthracycline NAC on risks of breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Methods We performed a retrospective population-based cohort analysis using patient-level health administrative data. The cohort includes women aged ≥18 years with stage I – III invasive breast cancer diagnosed between January 2012 and December 2020, treated with NAC and surgery. Patients were excluded if they received < 50% of the planned chemotherapy regimen, had bilateral breast cancer and/or a previous malignancy. The exposure of interest was anthracycline versus non-anthracycline NAC regimen. The primary and secondary endpoints were breast cancer-specific mortality and overall (all-cause) mortality. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted by propensity score, and clinical/pathologic variables including a measure of comorbidity was performed to examine impact of omission of anthracyclines on outcomes. Cumulative incidence curves were generated to calculate the 5-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer and all-cause mortality for the whole cohort and in subset analyses, stratified by stage and receptor subtype. Results The cohort includes 4,180 women. Median follow was 62 months (IQR 44-85) and median age was 51 years (IQR 43-60). Most patients had low co-morbidities (96.0%), Stage II (44.1%) or Stage III (47.7%) disease, underwent mastectomy (72.6%), had axillary node dissection (64.4%) and received post-operative radiotherapy (88.8%). 279 (6.7%) individuals were treated with a non-anthracycline NAC and 3,901 (93.3 %) received an anthracycline NAC. Women who received non-anthracycline NAC were older (median 62 years vs. 50 years; p< 0.001), more likely to have stage I-II disease (77.0% vs. 51.3%; p< 0.001), and more likely to have triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (14.0% vs. 24.4%; p< 0.001) than those who received anthracyclines.On propensity adjusted multivariable analysis, factors associated with an increased risk of BC mortality include Stage III (HR 9.3, 95%CI 4.5 - 19.2, p< 0.0001) or stage II at presentation (HR 2.57 95% CI 1.24, 5.34, p=.01) (ref: stage I) or triple negative subtype (HR 3.7 95% CI 3.03, 4.51, p< .0001) (ref: hormone positive/HER2-). There was no significant difference in the relative risks of BC death (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.27) or all-cause mortality (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60-1.21) for patients selected for treatment without anthracyclines compared to those treated with anthracyclines.Overall, among individuals selected for treatment without or with anthracycline NAC there was no significant difference in the 5-year cumulative incidence of BC (15.4% vs 10.5%, P=.05) or all-cause mortality (16.4% vs 11.9%, P=.07). However, the 5-year cumulative incidence of BC specific death (31.8% vs 16.5%, p=.03) and 5-year cumulative incidence of all-cause death (31.8% vs. 18.2%, p=.06) was higher among 420 women with HER2+ Stage III breast cancer who received non-anthracycline versus anthracycline-based chemotherapy. No difference was observed for other subgroups. Conclusions The omission of anthracyclines in NAC for individuals with stage III HER2+ breast cancer was associated with higher cumulative risks of breast cancer and all-cause mortality but no difference was observed for other subgroups. Further research is warranted to better understand in whom anthracyclines can be safely omitted. Citation Format: Danilo Giffoni M. M. Mata, Rinku Sutradhar, Matthew Castelo, Lena Nguyen, Danielle Rodin, Ezra Hahn, Omolara Fatiregun, Cindy Fong, Sabina Trebinjac, Andrea Eisen, Lawrence Paszat, Katarzyna Jerzak, Eileen Rakovitch. A Population-Based Analysis of the Impact of Omission of Anthracyclines in the Neoadjuvant Setting on the Risk of Mortality [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-18-02.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".