Outcomes of invasive ductal (ID) or invasive lobular (IL) early stage breast cancer in women treated with anastrozole or exemestane in the Canadian cancer trials Group MA.27.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
521 Background: Previous data suggest histologic subtype, invasive ductal (ID) versus (vs) invasive lobular (IL), might be a marker for response to hormone therapy in receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer [Metzger O, et al: Cancer Res 2012, 72:S1-1]. Methods: MA.27 compared five years of adjuvant anastrozole (A) or exemestane (E) in patients with HR+ early breast cancer. We evaluated ID versus IL histology (based on original pathology reports) as a prognostic marker for outcomes. Results: We were able to include 5,709 patients (5,021 with ID and 688 with IL histology, out of 7,576 patients in MA.27) who had a median follow-up of 4.1 years. Histologic subtype did not influence overall survival (OS) or event-free survival (EFS) in the overall study cohort (HR 1.04, P = 0.81 and HR 1.14, P = 0.49, respectively). In univariable analysis of OS, there was no significant difference between treatment with E vs A in the ID group (HR = 0.92, P = 0.46). In the IL group, a marginally significant difference in favor of treatment with anastrozole was seen (HR = 1.79, P = 0.055). In multivariable analysis a prognostic effect of the interaction between treatment and histological subtype on OS (but not on EFS) was noted, suggesting a better outcome for patients with IL cancer when treated with anastrozole (HR 2.1, P = 0.05). After a stepwise selection process in the multivariable model, a marginally significant prognostic effect for the interaction variable (treatment with histological subtype) on OS (but not on EFS) was noted (Ratio of HR 2.1, P = 0.05). Conclusions: Histologic subtype did not have an effect on OS or EFS in patients in MA.27. Neither A or E had a differential effect on ID versus IL cancers with respect to EFS. However, similar to data from the BIG 1-98 trial, our data suggest an interaction effect between treatment and histology (P = 0.05) on OS. Here, patients with IL cancers had a better OS when treated with A vs E (HR 1.79, P = 0.055), whereas no difference was noted for patients with ID cancers (HR 0.92, P = 0.47).
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".