Late Extended Adjuvant Treatment With Letrozole Improves Outcome in Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Who Complete 5 Years of Tamoxifen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group MA.17 trial examined the efficacy of letrozole (LET) started within 3 months of 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen in postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer. When the trial was unblinded, patients who received placebo (PLAC) were offered LET. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cohort analysis describes the outcomes of women assigned PLAC at the initial random assignment after unblinding. Efficacy outcomes of women who chose LET (PLAC-LET group) were compared with those who did not (PLAC-PLAC group) by the hazard ratios and by P values calculated from Cox models that adjusted for imbalances between the groups. Toxicity analyses included only events that occurred after unblinding. RESULTS: There were 1,579 women in the PLAC-LET group (median time from tamoxifen, 2.8 years) and 804 in the PLAC-PLAC group. Patients in the PLAC-LET group were younger; had a better performance status; and were more likely to have had node-positive disease, axillary dissection, and adjuvant chemotherapy than those in the PLAC-PLAC group. At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, disease-free survival (DFS; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.61; P < .0001) and distant DFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.74; P = .004) were superior in the PLAC-LET group. More self-reported new diagnoses of osteoporosis and significantly more clinical fractures occurred in the women who took LET (5.2% v 3.1%, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Interpretation of this cohort analysis suggests that LET improves DFS and distant DFS even when there has been a substantial period of time since the discontinuation of prior adjuvant 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".