Efficacy, Toxicity, and Quality of Life in Older Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Treated With Letrozole or Placebo After 5 Years of Tamoxifen: NCIC CTG Intergroup Trial MA.17
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group trial MA.17 randomly assigned 5,187 postmenopausal, hormone-receptor-positive patients with early breast cancer who completed 5 years of tamoxifen to receive either letrozole or placebo. At 30 months median follow-up, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) in all patients and overall survival (OS) in node-positive patients. Breast cancer incidence increases with age and more than 1,300 women age 70 years or older were enrolled onto MA.17, making it ideal to explore the benefits, toxicities, and quality of life (QOL) impact of letrozole on older women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 5,169 randomly assigned patients were divided into three age groups: younger than 60 years (n = 2,152), 60 to 69 years (n = 1,694), and >or= 70 years (n = 1,323). Log-rank test was used to compare differences in DFS, distant-disease-free survival, and OS between age and treatment groups, and Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios and associated 95% CIs. QOL was measured using the Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 and the Menopause-Specific Quality-of-Life questionnaire. RESULTS: At 4 years, DFS demonstrated statistically significant differences favoring letrozole only in patients age younger than 60 years (hazard ratio = 0.46; P = .0004); there was no interaction between age and treatment, indicating a similar effect of letrozole among all age groups. There was no difference in toxicity or QOL at 24 months among letrozole- and placebo-treated patients age >or= 70 years. CONCLUSION: Healthy patients age 70 years and older completing 5 years of tamoxifen should be considered for extended adjuvant therapy with letrozole.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".