MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2732225635 · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.72.0946

Treatment Efficacy, Adherence, and Quality of Life Among Women Younger Than 35 Years in the International Breast Cancer Study Group TEXT and SOFT Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Trials

2017· article· en· W2732225635 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Poornima Saha, Meredith M. Regan, Olivia Pagani, Prudence A. Francis, Barbara Walley, Karin Ribi, Jürg Bernhard, Weixiu Luo, Henry Gómez, Harold J. Burstein, Vani Parmar, Roberto Torres, Josephine Stewart, Meritxell Bellet, Antonia Perelló, Faysal Dane, António Moreira, Daniel Vorobiof, Michelle Nottage, Karen N. Price, Alan S. Coates, Aron Goldhirsch, Richard D. Gelber, Marco Colleoni, Gini F. Fleming

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteMedical Research CouncilCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthIpsenNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCancer Research UKNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNRG OncologyAmerican College of Radiology Imaging NetworkAstraZenecaNational Cancer Research InstituteLes Laboratories Pierre FabreNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreSchweizerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Klinische KrebsforschungOncosuissePfizerCancer Research Institute
KeywordsExemestaneMedicineTamoxifenBreast cancerInternal medicineOncologyGynecologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To describe benefits and toxicities of adjuvant endocrine therapies in women younger than 35 years with breast cancer (n = 582) enrolled in the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) and Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT). Methods In SOFT, women still premenopausal after surgery with or without chemotherapy were randomly assigned to tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (OFS), or exemestane plus OFS. In TEXT, all received OFS with or without concomitant chemotherapy and were randomly assigned to exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. We summarize treatment efficacy, quality of life, and adherence of the cohort of women younger than 35 years in SOFT and TEXT, alongside data from the cohort of older premenopausal women. Results For 240 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative patients younger than 35 years enrolled in SOFT after receiving chemotherapy, the 5-year breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) was 67.1% (95% CI, 54.6% to 76.9%) with tamoxifen alone, 75.9% with tamoxifen plus OFS (95% CI, 64.0% to 84.4%), and 83.2% with exemestane plus OFS (95% CI, 72.7% to 90.0%). For 145 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative patients younger than 35 years in TEXT, 5-year BCFI was 79.2% (95% CI, 66.2% to 87.7%) with tamoxifen plus OFS and 81.6% (95% CI, 69.8% to 89.2%) with exemestane plus OFS. The most prominent quality of life symptom for patients younger than 35 years receiving OFS was vasomotor symptoms, with the greatest worsening from baseline at 6 months (on the order of 30 to 40 points), but loss of sexual interest and difficulties in becoming aroused were also clinically meaningful (≥ 8-point change). The level of symptom burden was similar in older premenopausal women. A total of 19.8% of women younger than 35 years stopped all protocol-assigned endocrine therapy early. Conclusion In women younger than 35 years with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, adjuvant OFS combined with tamoxifen or exemestane produces large improvements in BCFI compared with tamoxifen alone. Menopausal symptoms are significant but are not worse than those seen in older premenopausal women.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations148
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207