MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414781849 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32100556

Locoregional Treatment in De Novo Bone-Only Metastatic Breast Cancer: Prospective, Multi-Institutional Real-World Data, BOMETIN, Protocol MF14-1a

2025· article· en· W4414781849 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Atilla Soran, Berk Göktepe, Berkay Demirors, Serdar Özbaş, Lütfi Doğan, Didem Can Trablus, Jamila Alazhri, Kazım Şenol, Shruti Zaveri, Salyna Meas, Umut Demırcı, Hasan Karanlık, Aykut Soyder, Ahmet Dağ, Ahmet Bılıcı, Mutlu Doğan, Mehmet Alı Nahıt Şendur, Hande Köksal, Mehmet Ali Gülçelik, Neslihan Cabıoğlu, Levent Yenıay, Nihat Zafer Utkan, Nuri Karadurmuş, Gül Dağlar, Turgay Şimşek, Birol Yıldız, Cihan Uras, Mustafa Tükenmez, Cihangir Özaslan, Niyazi Karaman, Arda Işık, Efe Sezgın, Vahit Özmen, Anthony Lucci

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortBreast cancerMetastatic breast cancerSystemic therapyOverall survivalCancerCohort studyProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The impact of locoregional treatment (LRT) on survival in de novo bone-only metastatic breast cancer (dnBOMBC) is controversial. This study aims to assess the effect of LRT on survival, utilizing international, prospectively acquired data in this cohort of patients. Materials and Methods: Patients with dnBOMBC were divided into two groups: those receiving systemic therapy only (ST) and those undergoing LRT. Further, patients who received LRT were divided into two subgroups: those who received ST after LRT (LRT+ST group) and those who received ST prior to LRT (ST+LRT group). Factors associated with disease progression, including solitary or multiple bone metastases, were analyzed. Results: There was a total of 744 patients with dnBOMBC treated at each of the participating institutions between 2014 and 2022, with 372 (50%) participants in each arm. Median follow-up was 48 months (32–66, 25–75%). Patients in the LRT group were significantly younger than the ST group [50 (42, 60) vs. 55 (44, 66), p = 0.0001]. There were no significant differences in grade, HER2 status, triple-negative status, receipt of hormonal therapy, or intervention to metastatic sites. During follow-up, 58% (n = 217) of patients in the ST group and 32% (n = 120) of patients in the LRT group died (p < 0.001). Local progression was observed in 20% of the patients in the ST group, whereas 9% progressed in the LRT group (p = 0.0001). Systemic progression occurred more in the ST group; 66% (n = 244) compared to 41% (n = 152) of patients in the LRT group (p < 0.001). The hazard of death was 64% lower in the LRT group than in the ST group (HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.29–0.45, p < 0.0001). The burden of metastatic disease differed significantly between the two groups, with a higher rate of solitary bone metastases in the LRT group compared to the ST group (50% vs. 24%, p < 0.001). However, the LRT group had better overall survival (OS) for both solitary (HR: 0.38, 95% Cl: 0.26–0.55) and multiple (HR: 0.38, 95% Cl: 0.29–0.51) bone metastasis patients. Within the LRT group, survival rates were similar whether the breast surgery was performed before or after ST. Multivariate Cox analysis showed that LRT and ER/PR positivity significantly decrease the hazard of death (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Analysis of this large multi-institutional patient cohort provides further evidence that LRT is associated with longer OS and lower locoregional recurrence rates in patients with dnBOMBC. In breast cancer patients with bone-only metastases at presentation, the decision for LRT should be made through a multidisciplinary approach with consideration of surgical therapy at the primary tumor.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.353 · 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
GenreProtocol

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 venueCurrent OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207