MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767600184 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1701830

20-Year Risks of Breast-Cancer Recurrence after Stopping Endocrine Therapy at 5 Years

2017· review· en· W2767600184 on OpenAlexaff
Hongchao Pan, Richard Gray, Jeremy Braybrooke, Christina Davies, Carolyn Taylor, Paul McGale, Richard Peto, Kathleen I. Pritchard, Jonas Bergh, Mitch Dowsett, Daniel F. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on AgingMedical Research CouncilRijksuniversiteit GroningenUniversity of OxfordMassachusetts Medical SocietyNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UK
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOncologyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCancerEndocrine systemStage (stratigraphy)DiseaseGynecologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The administration of endocrine therapy for 5 years substantially reduces recurrence rates during and after treatment in women with early-stage, estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. Extending such therapy beyond 5 years offers further protection but has additional side effects. Obtaining data on the absolute risk of subsequent distant recurrence if therapy stops at 5 years could help determine whether to extend treatment. METHODS: In this meta-analysis of the results of 88 trials involving 62,923 women with ER-positive breast cancer who were disease-free after 5 years of scheduled endocrine therapy, we used Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses, stratified according to trial and treatment, to assess the associations of tumor diameter and nodal status (TN), tumor grade, and other factors with patients' outcomes during the period from 5 to 20 years. RESULTS: Breast-cancer recurrences occurred at a steady rate throughout the study period from 5 to 20 years. The risk of distant recurrence was strongly correlated with the original TN status. Among the patients with stage T1 disease, the risk of distant recurrence was 13% with no nodal involvement (T1N0), 20% with one to three nodes involved (T1N1-3), and 34% with four to nine nodes involved (T1N4-9); among those with stage T2 disease, the risks were 19% with T2N0, 26% with T2N1-3, and 41% with T2N4-9. The risk of death from breast cancer was similarly dependent on TN status, but the risk of contralateral breast cancer was not. Given the TN status, the factors of tumor grade (available in 43,590 patients) and Ki-67 status (available in 7692 patients), which are strongly correlated with each other, were of only moderate independent predictive value for distant recurrence, but the status regarding the progesterone receptor (in 54,115 patients) and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) (in 15,418 patients in trials with no use of trastuzumab) was not predictive. During the study period from 5 to 20 years, the absolute risk of distant recurrence among patients with T1N0 breast cancer was 10% for low-grade disease, 13% for moderate-grade disease, and 17% for high-grade disease; the corresponding risks of any recurrence or a contralateral breast cancer were 17%, 22%, and 26%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy, breast-cancer recurrences continued to occur steadily throughout the study period from 5 to 20 years. The risk of distant recurrence was strongly correlated with the original TN status, with risks ranging from 10 to 41%, depending on TN status and tumor grade. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others.).

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.018
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,810
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207