Extended adjuvant tamoxifen for early breast cancer: A meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
539 Background: Hormone receptor positive breast cancer is characterized by the potential for disease recurrence many years after initial diagnosis. Endocrine therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of such recurrence, but the optimal duration of endocrine therapy remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the relative and absolute benefits and harms of extended adjuvant tamoxifen (>5 years of therapy) compared with adjuvant tamoxifen (≤5 years of therapy). Odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), absolute risks, and the number needed to treat (NNT) were computed for pre-specified events including disease recurrence, distant recurrence, all-cause death, endometrial carcinoma, cardiovascular death and treatment discontinuation. Subgroup analyses by timing of recurrence and baseline lymph node and menopause status were carried out. Results: Six trials comprising 25,326 patients were included. Extended adjuvant tamoxifen was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of recurrence (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.04, p=0.14, NNT 74). Similar results were seen for distant recurrence (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75-1.04, p=0.14, NNT 70). There was no association between extended adjuvant tamoxifen and all-cause death (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86-1.31, p=0.58). There was no reduction in risk during extended adjuvant therapy (i.e. between years 5 and 9), but a potential reduction in the risk of recurrence after completion of extended adjuvant tamoxifen (i.e. beyond 10 years after diagnosis). Subgroup analysis suggested benefit in lymph node positive patients. Endometrial carcinoma was substantially more frequent with extended adjuvant tamoxifen (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.45-2.25, p<0.001, NNT 102), but among those with endometrial carcinoma, the odds of death were lower among the extended tamoxifen group (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.90, p=0.02). Conclusions: Extended adjuvant tamoxifen is not associated with a significant reduction in recurrence or death in unselected patients. Patients with lymph node positive breast cancer may derive more benefit. Reduction in the risk of recurrence only appears after completion of extended adjuvant therapy.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".