Tamoxifen (T) compared to placebo (P), after adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), in premenopausal women with early breast cancer (EBC): Interim results of NCIC-CTG MA.12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
547 Background: In the early 1990’s, the role of adjuvant T in premenopausal women with EBC had not been clearly established. The efficacy of adjuvant T in hormone receptor (H) negative EBC was unclear. Methods: Eligible premenopausal women with node (N) +ve/high risk N -ve EBC, any H status, post surgery, received standard adjuvant CT (AC ×4, CMF ×6, CEF x6) then were randomized to T (20 mg/day) or P for 5 yrs. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity/compliance were evaluated. Original sample size was 800 pts but based on slow accrual was reduced to 660. Mortality rate is lower than anticipated, and Data Safety Monitoring Committee approved reporting results after second interim analysis (152 deaths). Results: 1993–2000, 672 women randomized, median follow-up 8.4 yrs. For T vs P, 5 yr OS 87% vs 82% [Hazard Ratio HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.58–1.12), p = 0.19] and 5 yr DFS 78% vs 71% [HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.61–1.03), p = 0.09]. HR for OS (0.87 vs 0.78, p = 0.71) and DFS (0.79 vs 0.77, p = 0.87) were not significantly different for H +ve and H -ve tumors respectively. Compliance with T/P was suboptimal, 29% women stopping treatment within 2 yrs, and only 53% completing 5 yrs. Conclusions: Current results show only a trend towards improved DFS for premenopausal women with EBC who receive T after adjuvant CT. Other studies of similar design have shown improved DFS, but not OS, and meta-analysis may be more informative. Issues affecting results (slow accrual, improved outcomes for EBC, poor compliance, additional therapies) will be discussed. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".