A Real-World Comparison Between Adjuvant Docetaxel with Cyclophosphamide (TC) and Anthracycline–Taxane Chemotherapy in Early HER-2 Negative Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anthracycline–taxane chemotherapy is the gold standard in high-risk breast cancer (BC), despite the potential risk of congestive heart failure (CHF). A suitable alternative for anthracycline-sparing chemotherapy is through the combination of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC). Methods: Through a retrospective study of stage I-III HER2-negative BC, using administrative databases, we analyzed a total of 10,634 women treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada, between 2009 and 2017. We compared TC versus standardized anthracycline–taxane chemotherapies (ACT and FEC-D). We investigated the overall survival (OS), and explored the incidence of CHF, emergency department (ED) visits and febrile neutropenia. Results: With a median follow-up of 5.5 years, the 5-year analysis showed an increased OS in patients treated with TC, versus those treated with ACT, HR 0.77 (0.63–0.95, p = 0.015). Among ER+ BC, there was an increased OS in patients treated with ACT and FEC-D, versus those treated with TC, HR 0.70 (0.52–0.95, p = 0.021) and HR 0.71 (0.56–0.91, p = 0.007), respectively. There were no substantial differences in CHF, between TC and anthracycline-based treatments. Patients treated with TC and FEC-D had more ED visits, compared to those treated with ACT. Conclusion: Our study shows that anthracycline–taxane regimens were the most commonly prescribed adjuvant chemotherapy options in HER2-negative BC. Women who received ACT had the lowest OS, likely due to their unfavorable pathology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".