Risk-guided cardioprotection with carvedilol in patients with breast cancer (CCT guide): a phase 1 randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Breast cancer treatment results in increased cardiotoxicity risk; a risk-guided approach to cardioprotection has not been fully tested. METHODS: This single-center, randomized Phase I trial enrolled patients with Stage I-III breast cancer who planned to receive anthracycline and/or trastuzumab therapy. An internally validated cardiotoxicity risk score classified participants as low or elevated risk. Elevated risk participants were randomized to receive open-label carvedilol or usual care for 12 months, beginning at cancer therapy initiation. Study visits occurred at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months. Primary outcomes included feasibility, safety, and tolerability. Exploratory outcomes included echocardiography, biologic, and patient-reported measures. RESULTS: Of the 166 eligible patients approached, 68 (41%) agreed to participate and ultimately enrolled. Among these participants (median age 52, 35% Black), 49 were classified as low and 19 elevated risk. Within the elevated risk group, 13 were randomized to carvedilol and 6 usual care. For those randomized to carvedilol, the median maximum dose was 6.25 mg twice daily, with 93% adherence. Adverse events of interest (grade 3 + bradycardia, hypotension, or fatigue) occurred in 9% with carvedilol, 13% in usual care, and 4% in low risk groups. One (1.5%) low risk participant experienced cardiac dysfunction. There were no substantial differences in secondary outcomes across groups. The participant withdrawal rate was 7%. CONCLUSIONS: This Phase 1 trial demonstrates that a risk-guided strategy can be applied to patients with active cancer. However, additional strategies are necessary to optimize the design and execution of non-treatment intervention trials in patients with active cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04023110.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".