High-Risk Premenopausal Luminal A Breast Cancer Patients Derive no Benefit from Adjuvant Cyclophosphamide-based Chemotherapy: Results from the DBCG77B Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: Luminal A breast cancers have better prognosis than other molecular subtypes. Luminal A cancers may also be insensitive to adjuvant chemotherapy, although there is little high-level evidence to confirm this concept. The primary hypothesis in this formal prospective–retrospective analysis was to assess interaction between subtype (Luminal A vs. other) and treatment (chemotherapy vs. not) for the primary endpoint (10-year invasive disease-free survival) of a breast cancer trial randomizing women to adjuvant chemotherapy, analyzed in multivariate Cox proportional hazards models using the Wald interaction test. Experimental Design: The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group 77B clinical trial randomized 1,072 premenopausal women to no systematic treatment (control), levamisole, cyclophosphamide, or cyclophosphamide–methotrexate–fluorouracil arms. All arms included radiotherapy but no endocrine therapy. Researchers with no access to clinical data performed intrinsic subtype analysis on tissue microarrays using published immunohistochemical methods based on estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2, Ki67, and basal markers. Results: Patients (n = 709) had tissue available; chemotherapy benefit in these patients was similar to the original trial (HR, 0.56). Immunohistochemistry classified 165 as Luminal A, 319 Luminal B, 58 HER2-enriched, and 82 core basal (among 91 triple-negative). Patients with Luminal A breast tumors did not benefit from chemotherapy [HR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53–2.14; P = 0.86], whereas patients with non–luminal A subtypes did (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < 0.001; Pinteraction = 0.048). Conclusions: In a prospective–retrospective analysis of a randomized trial, patients with Luminal A breast cancers did not benefit from adjuvant cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res; 23(4); 946–53. ©2016 AACR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".