Characterization of patients who received further adjuvant endocrine therapy after 5 years of aromatase inhibitors (AIs): NCIC CTG MA 27.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e11005 Background: MA.27 examined the efficacy of 5 yrs of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI), exemestane and anastrozole. Long term outcomes of AI trials may be influenced by unspecified subsequent hormonal therapy so we enquired about its frequency. Methods: Clinical trials (NCIC CTG MA.17R, NSABP B-43) are exploring >5 yrs AI; neither efficacy nor toxicities are known. MA.27 enrolled 7,576 patients June 2003 to July 2008: 5526 (73% in US), 1301 (17% in Canada), 749 (10% outside North America). Clinical cut-off for final follow-up and analysis was April 15 2010: median 4.1 yrs follow-up. Receipt of concomitant medications was routinely reported throughout the trial. Only 345 patients (median age, 64.2 years) completed protocol-specified 5 yrs AI, without breast cancer (BC) relapse, development of contralateral BC, or other second malignancies. Patients were classified by extended endocrine therapy: off trial, physician prescribed specific endocrine therapy; randomized trial endocrine therapy; or no endocrine therapy. Differences in baseline patient and tumor characteristics for these classifications were compared with Fisher’s exact test. Results: From the total group of 345 patients, 320 (93%) received no further endocrine therapy, and 25 (7%) received subsequent therapy. Among the 25, 18 (72%) entered trials and were assigned to endocrine therapy or placebo. Physicians prescribed endocrine therapy to the other 7 (28%). Fourteen (78%) of those who received trial assigned and 7 (100%) of those who received specific additional endocrine therapy were below 70 years of age. Of the 25 patients who received subsequent therapy, only 2 (8%) had >2 cm tumor, and 6 (24%) had node positive tumors. None of the characteristics were significantly different for women who did or did not receive additional therapy. Conclusions: MA.27 is closed to further follow-up, so these results represent the totality of trial information about further endocrine therapy from clinical practices of those who enrolled MA.27 patients. It appears that subsequent hormonal therapy was uncommon (7% of women) after 5 yrs of an AI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".