Abstract P2-14-01: Fulvestrant vs exemestane for treatment of metastatic breast cancer in patients with acquired resistance to non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors – a meta-analysis of EFECT and SoFEA (CRUKE/03/021 & CRUK/09/007)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Optimal endocrine treatment (trt) for post-menopausal women with ER+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing on or following a non-steroidal (NS) aromatase inhibitor (AI) is unclear. The EFECT study showed no difference in efficacy between the steroidal antiestrogen fulvestrant (F) & steroidal AI exemestane (E) in this setting (HR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.82, 1.13; p = 0.65). Pre-clinical data suggest F may be more effective in a low estrogen environment. SoFEA investigated F combined with anastrozole (F+A) in patients (pts) with acquired resistance to previous AI compared with F alone & F alone vs. E. The combination of F+A was no better than F (HR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.83, 1.21; p = 0.98) nor F alone better than E (HR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.79, 1.14; p = 0.56); the lack of added benefit for F+A is consistent with previous 1st-line studies that have assessed this combination versus A alone (FACT & SWOG-S0226). Methods: SoFEA is a multi-center partially blinded randomized phase III study postmenopausal women were allocated to F plus A (F+A n=243), F plus placebo (n = 231) or E (n = 249). Similarly, EFECT is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multi-center phase III trial of F (n = 351) versus E (n = 342) in postmenopausal women (see table). However, given the differences in prior endocrine therapy/responsiveness within SoFEA & EFECT populations, an individual pt meta-analysis combining data from SoFEA & EFECT will be conducted enabling exploration of putative effects within specific pt subgroups to establish evidence in support, or not, of a pt subgroup sensitive to F at the dose used in these trials. Subgroups to be analysed include receptor status, visceral involvement, AI sensitivity, age, NSAI setting & time on NSAI. Results: 723 pts (480 in F & E) were enrolled from 82 UK & 4 South Korean centers (03/2004-04/2010) in SoFEA. 693 pts were enrolled from 138 centers worldwide (08/2003-11/2005) in EFECT. Trt was well tolerated in both trials; serious adverse events were rare. The meta-analysis will be conducted in July 2012 & results presented. Conclusion: Combining individual pt data from SoFEA & EFECT via meta-analysis will provide definitive clinical information on pt's response to F at the dose used in these studies, in particular whether certain pts with acquired resistance to NSAI do experience benefit of use of this antiestrogen as opposed to E. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-01.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".