Open comparative trial of formestane versus megestrol acetate in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with tamoxifen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the trial was to compare efficacy and safety of the aromatase inhibitor formestane (250 mg i.m. given every 2 weeks) with the progestin megestrol acetate (160 mg administered orally once daily), as second-line therapy in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with tamoxifen. A total of 547 patients were enrolled. Analyses revealed no statistically significant or clinically relevant difference between treatments with respect to time endpoints. In the intent-to-treat analysis, the median values for time to failure and overall survival for formestane were 169 and 561 days, respectively. The corresponding values for megestrol acetate were 169 days and 597 days, respectively. Overall response rates were comparable for formestane and megestrol acetate (16.3% vs 20.3%). Formestane was better tolerated than megestrol acetate. In the megestrol acetate group, cardiovascular events, weight increase, and vaginal haemorrhage were significantly more frequent than in the formestane group. Thus, formestane is a suitable alternative to progestins in patients previously treated with tamoxifen.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".