BOLERO-2: Health-related quality-of-life in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with everolimus and exemestane versus exemestane.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
539 Background: BOLERO-2, a phase III study, randomized 724 patients with hormone-receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer, who had recurrence or progression on/after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy, to everolimus (EVE) plus exemestane (EXE) or EXE and placebo. A preplanned 12-month median time interim analysis demonstrated that EVE+EXE significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs EXE+placebo but that EVE+EXE resulted in a higher rate of grade 3/4 toxicity. Per-protocol patient reported health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data are limited; here we report on additional post-hoc analyses of these outcomes. Methods: Using the EORTC–QLQ‑C30 questionnaire, HRQoL was assessed at baseline and every 6 weeks thereafter until progression. The QLQ‑C30 consists of 30 items combined into 15 subscales, including a Global Health Status (GHS) where higher scores (range 0 to 100) indicate better HRQoL. This analysis included a protocol-specified time to definitive deterioration (TTD) analysis at a 5% decrease in QoL relative to baseline, with no subsequent increase above this threshold. We report additional sensitivity analyses using 10-point minimally important difference (MID) decreases in QLQ‑C30 score relative to baseline. Treatment arms were compared using a stratified logrank test and a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for trial stratum (visceral metastases and previous hormone sensitivity), age, sex, race, baseline score and ECOG performance status, prognostic factors, and treatment history. Results: Baseline QLQ‑C30 GHS scores were not statistically significantly different across treatment groups (64.7 vs 65.3; difference -0.7 [95% CI; -4.3, 3.0]). The median TTD in HRQoL was 7.0 months (95% CI; 5.6, 8.3) for EVE+EXE vs 5.6 (95% CI; 4.2, 7.0) for EXE (P = .0792). Adjusted HR (0.80) approached significance (95% CI; 0.63, 1.02). At the 10-point MID, median TTD for EVE+EXE was 9.7 months (95% CI; 8.3, 11.2) vs 8.4 months (95% CI; 6.3, 12.5) for EXE. Adjusted HR was 0.90 (95% CI; 0.69, 1.18). Conclusions: These additional analyses demonstrate that in addition to significantly improving PFS, EVE+EXE does not compromise HRQoL.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".