MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408806012 · doi:10.14740/wjon1991

Patterns, Predictors, and Prognostic Implication of Treatment-Related Amenorrhea in Patients With Breast Cancer

2025· article· en· W4408806012 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bryant Ng, Armeyra Devani Ferintasari, Susanna Hilda Hutajulu, Yufi Kartika Astari, Juan Adrian Wiranata, Ery Kus Dwianingsih, Irianiwati Widodo, Lina Choridah, Wigati Dhamiyati, Mardiah Suci Hardianti, Kartika Widayati Taroeno‐Hariadi

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPázmány Péter Katolikus EgyetemUniversitas Gadjah Mada
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerAmenorrheaOncologyInternal medicineCancerGynecologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Treatment-related amenorrhea (TRA) is a common side effect of treatment in premenopausal patients with breast cancer, with important consequences for patient counseling and management. Its occurrence and potential influence on survival outcomes remain active areas of investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and prognostic significance of TRA in patients with breast cancer. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients were interviewed during and after chemotherapy to assess their menstrual status. Sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment data of patients were also collected. TRA was classified into early amenorrhea (EA) and late amenorrhea (LA) based on the duration of amenorrhea. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify risk factors of EA and LA. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to investigate the impact of EA and LA on 3-year overall survival (OS). Results: There were 81 patients who were eligible for the final analysis. Of these subjects, 14 (17.3%) developed no amenorrhea, 67 (82.7%) developed EA, and 45 (55.6%) developed LA. We did not find any significant independent risk factor for EA. Age > 45 years (odds ratio (OR): 4.00; confidence interval (CI): 1.23 - 13.01; P = 0.021) and the usage of hormonal therapy (OR: 4.96; CI: 1.58 - 15.53; P = 0.006) independently significantly increase the risk of LA, whereas a metastatic disease status decreased the risk (OR: 0.20; CI: 0.04 - 0.90; P = 0.036). Both EA (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.262, CI: 0.105 - 0.653; P = 0.002) and LA (HR = 0.234, CI: 0.091 - 0.604; P = 0.001) were associated with an improved 3-year OS rate. Conclusions: Age > 45 years and the usage of hormonal therapy are risk factors for LA, while metastatic disease was associated with a decreased risk. Both EA and LA had a significant association with favorable 3-year OS. These findings enable clinicians to provide personalized guidance, tailor treatment strategies, and improve the outcomes of premenopausal patients with breast cancer. Standardization of how TRA is defined and assessed in future studies is essential to improve comparability and enhance the understanding of its clinical implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207