MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The effect of metformin on sex hormones in non-diabetic breast cancer patients in CCTG MA.32: A Phase III randomized adjuvant trial of metformin versus placebo in addition to standard therapy.

2019· article· en· W2947750174 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Pimentel, Bingshu E. Chen, Ana Elisa Lohmann, Marguerite Ennis, Jennifer A. Ligibel, Lois E. Shepherd, Dawn L. Hershman, Vuk Stambolic, Ingrid A. Mayer, Timothy J. Hobday, Julie Lemieux, Alastair M. Thompson, Priya Rastogi, Karen A. Gelmon, Timothy J. Whelan, Manuela Rabaglio, Ryan J.O. Dowling, Wendy R. Parulekar, Pamela J. Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemCancer Care OntarioUniversité LavalBC Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSex hormone-binding globulinMetforminPlaceboInternal medicineBreast cancerTestosterone (patch)EndocrinologyCancerGynecologyOncologyHormoneInsulinAndrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

529 Background: The effect of metformin on sex hormones (SHs) levels that may impact breast cancer (BC) outcome, is unclear. We evaluated the effect of metformin on SHs in a subgroup of women enrolled in the placebo-controlled MA.32 trial, a phase III randomized study of nondiabetic subjects with T1-3, N0-3 BC randomized to receive metformin 850 mg po bid or placebo for 5 years. Methods: Our substudy was conducted on the group of post-menopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) negative BC and not receiving endocrine treatment enrolled in the trial. Post-menopausal was defined as prior bilateral oophorectomy or > 12 months since last menses without prior hysterectomy. Fasting blood and adherence to study drug at baseline and 6 months was required. Sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), free testosterone and estradiol serum levels were evaluated using Roche Modular competitive ECLIA (electrochemiluminescense immunoassay). We compared change from baseline to 6 months in estradiol, SHBG and free testosterone between study arms using Wilcoxon sum rank tests and regression models to adjust for baseline BMI and weight change. Results: 304 women were eligible, 135 metformin vs 169 placebo; tumor stage and prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (98% in both arms) and HER2 targeted treatment were well balanced between arms. At baseline mean age was 58.2±6.9 vs 57.6±7.9 years, mean BMI 26.9±4.9 vs 28.6±6.2 Kg/m2, median estradiol 29.82 vs 31.01 pmol/L, SHBG 80.6 vs 73.7 nmol/L and free testosterone 0.02 vs 0.03 nmol/L in metformin vs placebo patients, respectively. In univariable analysis, median estradiol decreased significantly between baseline and 6 months on the metformin vs placebo arm (-4.81 vs 0 pmol/L, p = < 0.0001); this difference remained significant after controlling for baseline BMI (p = 0.0001) and weight change (mean weight change -1.8±3.5 vs 0.4±3.5 Kg, p = < 0.0001 for metformin vs placebo respectively) between baseline and 6 months (p = 0.0007). In contrast, there was no significant change in SHBG or free testosterone (median change SHBG -5.5 vs -5.9 nmol/L, p = 0.33; median change free testosterone 0 vs 0 nmol/L, p = 0.33 for metformin vs placebo respectively). Conclusions: Metformin lowered estradiol levels, independent of weight change in non-diabetic post-menopausal women with ER and PR negative BC enrolled onto MA.32 trial. This observation suggests a new metformin action that has potential relevance to BC management.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer→French-language works237,207→