First-Line (1L) Treatment Decision Patterns and Survival of Hormone Receptor (HR)-Positive/HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) Patients in a Latin American (LATAM) Public Institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced breast cancer is an incurable disease, with a median overall survival of 3 years, including in countries without access problems. Although chemotherapy is reserved in some cases, it is still used in many countries as a first-line therapy. The aim of our study is to evaluate the first-line treatment choices and the factors that influence therapeutic decisions. A retrospective analysis was conducted of hormone receptor (+)/HER2 (-) advanced breast cancer patients classified into three groups according to the first-line and second-line treatment received: endocrine therapy-chemotherapy, endocrine therapy-endocrine therapy and chemotherapy-endocrine therapy. Additionally, we explored the overall survival of sequencing therapy groups. First-line chemotherapy was chosen in 34% of patients. Also, around 60% of our patients met the "aggressive disease" criteria from the RIGHT Choice trial, justifying the use of chemotherapy in a population with poor prognosis. Furthermore, de novo and progressive disease were prognostic factors that influenced the use of chemotherapy as a first-line treatment. Regarding overall survival, the sequencing treatment groups in this trial saw an increase in survival compared with patients of the MONALEESA trials (endocrine therapy alone arms). No significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival were found in the treatment sequencing groups. There was a higher use of chemotherapy as a first-line therapy, with de novo and "aggressive disease" criteria being the main factors to influence the decision.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".