The effects of gefitinib in tamoxifen‐resistant and hormone‐insensitive breast cancer: A phase II study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estrogen receptor (ER)-positive acquired tamoxifen-resistant (TAM-R) MCF-7 breast cancer cell lines exhibit epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression/signaling and are growth-inhibited by gefitinib (IRESSA). We examined the effect of gefitinib on ER-positive TAM-R and ER-negative hormone-insensitive breast cancer in a Phase II study. Fifty-four patients with breast cancer [ER-positive/acquired TAM-R (n = 28); ER-negative (n = 26)] received oral gefitinib 500 mg/day. Tumor biopsies were taken pre- (n = 28) and 8 weeks post-treatment (n = 14 matched samples). Gefitinib was well tolerated and the clinical benefit rate (objective response or stable disease >24 weeks) was 33.3% overall (n = 18/54), and 53.6 and 11.5% in ER-positive/TAM-R and ER-negative patients, respectively. Pretreatment ER and progesterone receptor-positivity were associated with response (p < 0.001 and 0.016, respectively) and longer progression-free survival (PFS; p= 0.001 and 0.013, respectively). All patients expressed EGFR, but high pretreatment levels predicted poorer outcome (p = 0.005) and shorter PFS (p = 0.012) with gefitinib. In patients with clinical benefit, reduced Ki67 staining during treatment (p = 0.024) was commonly observed, and those with >10% decline in EGFR phosphorylation demonstrated parallel decreases in ERK1/2 MAPK phosphorylation. Acquired tamoxifen resistance appears in part mediated through EGFR signaling and can be blocked with gefitinib.
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) | 0.000 | 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".