MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415651650 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32110599

Symptom Reporting Behaviors, Symptom Burden, and Quality of Life in Patients with Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer Undergoing Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy

2025· article· en· W4415651650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ece Ulukal Karancı, Halil Göksel Güzel, Banu Öztürk

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerQuality of life (healthcare)Adverse effectCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsAromatase inhibitorAdjuvantSurvivorship curveLogistic regressionConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) enhances survival outcomes in hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer. However, this treatment is associated with toxicities that may adversely affect the quality of life (QoL) and impact patient–physician communication. A thorough understanding of symptom-reporting behaviors is essential for optimizing survivorship care. Methods: This cross-sectional study surveyed 191 female patients with HR+ breast cancer undergoing adjuvant AET (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors ± ovarian function suppression [OFS]) at Antalya Training and Research Hospital between July and August 2025. QoL, symptom burden, and adverse event (AE) reporting behaviors were assessed using validated instruments (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 [EORTC QLQ-C30], adapted Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [PRO-CTCAE]). Categorical variables were compared using chi-square tests, and multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression. Results: The median age was 54 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 46–61 years). The following independent variables were identified as predictors of a higher symptom burden: prior chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR]: 3.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46–9.69; p = 0.006), OFS use (OR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.51–7.15; p = 0.003), AE reporting to physicians (OR: 3.52; 95% CI: 1.80–6.88; p < 0.001), and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use (OR: 7.27; 95% CI: 1.57–33.63; p = 0.011). Independent predictors of poor QoL included receiving psychological support (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.19–0.67; p = 0.002) and AE reporting (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.13–0.64; p = 0.001). Conclusions: Symptom burden and QoL in patients with HR+ breast cancer receiving AET are influenced by clinical history, including chemotherapy and OFS; behavioral factors, such as reporting behaviors; and supportive care, including CAM and psychological support. The routine integration of patient-reported outcomes and proactive symptom monitoring is crucial for delivering personalized and effective survivorship care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→