MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exemestane for primary prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: NCIC CTG MAP.3—A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

2011· article· en· W2560289362 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul E. Goss, J. N. Ingle, JE Alés-Martínez, Anthony Cheung, Rowan T. Chlebowski, Jean Wactawski‐Wende, Anne McTiernan, John Robbins, Karen Johnson, Lee Martin, Eric Winquist, Gloria E. Sarto, J. E. Garber, Carol J. Fabian, Pascal Pujol, Elizabeth Maunsell, Pierre Farmer, Karen A. Gelmon, Dongsheng Tu, Harriet Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExemestaneBreast cancerTamoxifenRaloxifeneInternal medicineGynecologyOncologyRandomized controlled trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA504 Background: Limited efficacy and serious toxicities have limited uptake of tamoxifen or raloxifene as preventatives of breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) prevent contralateral breast cancers more than tamoxifen in adjuvant trials and have fewer serious side effects. This is the first report of an AI used in primary prevention. Methods: NCIC CTG MAP.3 is a randomized trial designed to detect a 65% reduction in annual incidence of invasive breast cancer (IBC) on exemestane (E) versus placebo (P). Eligible postmenopausal women had ≥ one of the following risk factors: Gail score >1.66%, prior ADH, ALH, LCIS or DCIS with mastectomy, age over 60. Health-related and menopause-specific quality of life (QOL) were assessed by SF-36 and MENQOL questionnaires. Results: From 2004-2010, 4,560 women were randomized: age 62.5 yrs (37-90); Gail Score 2.3 % (0.6-21); BMI 28.0 kg/m2 (15.9-65.4). Risk factors included: age >60 yrs (49%); Gail score >1.66 (40%); and prior ADH, ALH, LCIS or DCIS with mastectomy (11%). At median follow-up of 35 months there were 11 IBCs on E and 32 on P (annual incidence 0.19% vs 0.55%; HR= 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.70, p = 0.002); ductal (10E/27P), lobular (1E/5P). Most tumors were ER positive (7E/27P); Her2/neu negative (10E/26P); TNM stage T1 (8E/28P), N0 (7E/22P), M0 (11E/30P). E was superior in all subgroups: by Gail score, age, BMI, prior LCIS and DCIS. The annual incidence rate of IBC or DCIS was 0.35% E and 0.77% P (HR=0.47;95% CI 0.27-0.79; p = 0.004) based on 64 IBCs or DCISs (20E/44P). Clinical bone fractures, osteoporosis, hypercholesterolemia or cardiovascular events were equal in both arms. No clinically meaningful differences in QOL were detected. Conclusions: Exemestane significantly reduced invasive and pre-invasive breast cancers in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer with no serious toxicities. Exemestane should be considered a new option for primary prevention of breast cancer. Supported by the Canadian Cancer Society; Pfizer Inc. PEG supported in part by Avon Foundation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEstrogen and related hormone effects→French-language works237,207→