MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract S3-02: NSABP B-36: A randomized phase III trial comparing six cycles of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) to four cycles of adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) in patients (pts) with node-negative breast cancer

2015· article· en· W1712386042 on OpenAlexaff
Jacobs A Samuel, John Wilson, Hanna Bandos, Richard Elledge, André Robidoux, Louis Fehrenbacher, Patrick J. Ward, Johnathan Polikoff, Adam Brufsky, Louise Provencher, Alexander Paterson, John Hamm, Robert L. Carolla, Luis Báez-Díaz, Priya Rastogi, Thomas B. Julian, D. Lawrence Wickerham, Sandra M. Swain, Charles E. Geyer, Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Norman Wolmark

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpirubicinMedicineInternal medicineBreast cancerClinical endpointCyclophosphamidePlaceboFluorouracilOncologyAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialCancerChemotherapyGastroenterologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background NSABP B-36 was originally designed as a 2X2 factorial randomized study to compare 6 cycles of FEC-100 with 4 cycles of standard AC with or without celecoxib in pts with node-negative breast cancer. The rationale for the trial was based on observations from other adjuvant trials suggesting that longer duration of anthracycline-based therapy may result in improved outcomes and also on accumulating evidence that prostaglandins may contribute to the malignant phenotype in breast cancer. The trial opened in May 2004 but random assignment to celecoxib v placebo was terminated in December 2004 (after 327 pts were enrolled) because of concerns for increased risk of cardiovascular disease with the use of COX-2 inhibitors. The trial continued as a two-arm study and completed accrual in July 2008. The primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS), and secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), and adverse events comparing FEC-100 and AC are reported here. Analyses of quality of life indicators will be reported separately. Methods 2,722 pts with T1-3, pN0 breast cancer were randomly assigned to either adriamycin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600mg/m2 every 21 days for 4 cycles (n=1361) or 5-FU 500mg/m2, epirubicin 100 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 every 21 days for 6 cycles (n=1361). Hormone- receptor positive pts were to receive physician's choice of hormonal therapy for a minimum of 5 yrs. Trastuzumab for HER2-positive pts was at investigator's discretion but was not to begin for >3 weeks after the last dose of chemotherapy. All women treated with lumpectomy were to receive breast radiotherapy; post-mastectomy chest wall radiotherapy was at physician's discretion. The differences in DFS (OS, RFI, and DRFI) between two treatment arms were assessed by log-rank test stratified by hormone receptor status and type of surgery. Results Median follow-up is 82.8 months. Pt and tumor characteristics were equally distributed between the two groups (<50 years old: 40%, lumpectomy: 68%, and hormone positivity: 65 %). Overall, Grade 3 and 4 expected toxicities were more frequent in the FEC arm. Combined Grade 3/4 toxicities reaching statistical significance with a difference of 3% or more between AC and FEC arms included fatigue 3.55% v 8.45%, febrile neutropenia 3.70% v 9.42%, and thrombocytopenia 0.74% v 4.41%, respectively. While on treatment, Grade 3 left ventricular systolic dysfunction occurred in one pt in each arm. There were 2 toxicity deaths on AC and 5 on the FEC arm. Primary and secondary endpoint analyses at 8 ys did not reveal any significant differences in DFS, OS, RFI, or DRFI. EndpointAC (%)FEC (%)HRCIp-valueDFS83.082.81.040.85,1.260.70OS91.292.00.940.71,1.240.65RFI90.090.40.970.76,1.260.84DRFI92.393.00.890.66,1.200.43 Conclusions Six cycles of the FEC-100 regimen did not result in any efficacy advantage over 4 cycles of standard AC in node-negative breast cancer pts. As anticipated, the FEC-100 regimen resulted in greater toxicity. Support NCI: U10-CA-12027, -37377, -69974, -69651, -44066-26; Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Citation Format: Jacobs A Samuel, John W Wilson, Hanna Bandos, Richard M Elledge, André Robidoux, Louis Fehrenbacher, Patrick J Ward, Johnathan Polikoff, Adam M Brufsky, Louise Provencher, Alexander HG Paterson, John T Hamm, Robert L Carolla, Luis Baez-Diaz, Priya Rastogi, Thomas B Julian, D Lawrence Wickerham, Sandra M Swain, Charles E Geyer Jr, Eleftherios P Mamounas, Norman Wolmark. NSABP B-36: A randomized phase III trial comparing six cycles of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) to four cycles of adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) in patients (pts) with node-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr S3-02.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207