Health-related quality of life and disease symptoms in postmenopausal women with HR<sup>+</sup>, HER2<sup>−</sup>advanced breast cancer treated with everolimus plus exemestane versus exemestane monotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Everolimus (EVE)+exemestane (EXE; n = 485) more than doubled median progression-free survival versus placebo (PBO) + EXE (n = 239), with a manageable safety profile and no deterioration in health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) in patients with hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)) advanced breast cancer (ABC) who recurred or progressed on/after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) therapy. To further evaluate EVE + EXE impact on disease burden, we conducted additional post-hoc analyses of patient-reported HRQOL. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: HRQOL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline and every 6 weeks thereafter until treatment discontinuation because of disease progression, toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 Global Health Status (QL2) scale, the QLQ-BR23 breast symptom (BRBS), and arm symptom (BRAS) scales. Between-group differences in change from baseline were assessed using linear mixed models with selected covariates. Sensitivity analysis using pattern-mixture models determined the effect of study discontinuation on/before week 24. Treatment arms were compared using differences of least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at each timepoint and overall. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00863655. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Progression-free survival, survival, response rate, safety, and HRQOL. RESULTS: Linear mixed models (primary model) demonstrated no statistically significant overall difference between EVE + EXE and PBO + EXE for QL2 (LSM difference = -1.91; 95% CI = -4.61, 0.78), BRBS (LSM difference = -0.18; 95% CI = -1.98, 1.62), or BRAS (LSM difference = -0.42; 95% CI = -2.94, 2.10). Based on pattern-mixture models, patients who dropped out early had worse QL2 decline on both treatments. In the expanded pattern-mixture model, EVE + EXE-treated patients who did not drop out early had stable BRBS and BRAS relative to PBO + EXE. KEY LIMITATIONS: HRQOL data were not collected after disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses confirm that EVE + EXE provides clinical benefit without adversely impacting HRQOL in patients with HR(+) ABC who recurred/progressed on prior NSAIs versus endocrine therapy alone.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".