MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PD2-07: 10-year follow-up and biomarker discovery for adjuvant endocrine therapy; results of the TEAM trial

2017· article· en· W2594478488 on OpenAlexaff
EJ Blok, EM Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg, CC Engels, Hein Putter, C Seynaeve, Judith R. Kroep, JWR Nortier, DW Rea, Annette Hasenburg, CJ Markopoulos, Robert Paridaens, JMS Bartlett, CJH van de Velde

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExemestaneMedicineInternal medicineOncologyBreast cancerHazard ratioTamoxifenClinical endpointAdjuvant therapyCancerRandomized controlled trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Optimal endocrine therapy for postmenopausal, hormone-receptor positive (HR+) early breast cancer remains a point of discussion. The Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) phase III trial showed no significant differences for disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) at 5 years between exemestane monotherapy and sequential treatment (tamoxifen followed by exemestane). We now report disease related outcomes at 10 years of follow-up (FU), and an explorative analysis to assess the predictive value of clinicopathological and immune-related biomarkers. In the TEAM trial, postmenopausal women with HR+ positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned to exemestane alone or sequential therapy. For this analysis, TEAM patients from countries that completed 10 years of FU were included. The primary endpoint was DFS at ten years, analyzed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes were OS and cumulative incidence of relapse. An explorative per protocol analysis for relapse free survival (RFS) was performed to identify predictive pathological and immunological biomarkers, including centrally determined ER (ER-poor 0-6 vs ER-rich 7-8) and PR (0-4 vs 5-8) Allred scores, and the immunological markers CD8, FoxP3, classical HLA class 1 and HLA-G which were described earlier (Engels et al, Breast Cancer Treat Res, 2015). In total, 6120 patients were eligible for the current analysis, 3075 patients with exemestane monotherapy and 3045 patients randomized to sequential treatment. Median follow up was 9.83 years. DFS was 66.8% in the exemestane group and 66.8% in the sequential group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.05, p=0.389). OS was 74% in the exemestane, and 73% in the sequential group, respectively (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.09, p=0.737). The cumulative incidence of relapse was 20% and 22% in the exemestane and sequential groups, respectively (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.99, p=0.031). In the explorative per protocol analysis (n=4041), Allred score were available for 2996 patients; immunological markers for 1754 patients. Patients with above median numbers of FoxP3-positive T-cells showed a benefit of exemestane monotherapy for RFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.75, p<0.001) in contrast to patients with low numbers of FoxP3-positive cells (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.77-1.32, p=0.97, p-value for interaction 0.004). A high tumor differentiation grade was associated with more benefit for exemestane monotherapy (grade 1/2 HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p=0.01, grade 3/4 HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.75, p<0.001), with a borderline significant interaction (p=0.07). ER Allred score showed a borderline significant treatment by marker effect interaction (ER-rich HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.58-0.81, p<0.001); ER-poor HR 0.94 (95% CI 0.65-1.34, p=0.71, p for interaction 0.12). After ten years of follow up, both exemestane monotherapy and sequential therapy remain appropriate options for postmenopausal HR+ early breast cancer patients. Interestingly, the number of regulatory T-cells was a predictive factor for the benefit of exemestane monotherapy, which implies a role of the local immune system in endocrine therapy. Furthermore, data suggested that patients with a higher differentiation grade or ER-rich tumor derive more benefit from exemestane monotherapy. Citation Format: Blok EJ, Derks MGM, Kuppen PJK, Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg EM, Engels CC, Liefers G-J, Putter H, Seynaeve CM, Kroep JR, Nortier JWR, Rea DW, Hasenburg A, Markopoulos CJ, Paridaens R, Bartlett JMS, van de Velde CJH. 10-year follow-up and biomarker discovery for adjuvant endocrine therapy; results of the TEAM trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-07.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207