Efficacy and Tolerability of Toremifene and Tamoxifen Therapy in Premenopausal Patients with Operable Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the use of tamoxifen as standard treatment for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, the use of toremifene as an adjuvant endocrine therapy has not been widely examined. The present retrospective study compared the efficacy and safety of toremifene and tamoxifen in the treatment of operable hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in premenopausal women. METHODS: Premenopausal patients with hormone receptor- positive operable breast cancer were eligible. Enrolled patients (n = 1847) received either 60 mg toremifene (n = 396) or 20 mg tamoxifen (n = 1451) daily for a minimum of 5 years after surgery. Disease-free survival (dfs) was the primary endpoint. Overall survival (os) and time to distant recurrence were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Treatment with toremifene and tamoxifen resulted in no between-group differences in dfs (p = 0.659) or os (p = 0.364). Mean dfs was 10.3 years for both groups. Mean os was 11.2 years for the toremifene group and 11.1 years for tamoxifen group. The 5-year dfs rate was 87.0% in the toremifene group and 85.0% in the tamoxifen group. The 5-year survival rate was 94.3% in the toremifene group and 93.5% in the tamoxifen group. Adverse events rates were similar in the two groups, with the exception of irregular menses, which occurred at a higher rate in the tamoxifen group than in the toremifene group (10.0% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, the efficacy and safety profiles of toremifene and tamoxifen for the treatment of operable hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in premenopausal women were similar.
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".