MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980534320 · doi:10.1200/jco.18.01967

Absolute Improvements in Freedom From Distant Recurrence to Tailor Adjuvant Endocrine Therapies for Premenopausal Women: Results From TEXT and SOFT

2019· article· en· W2980534320 on OpenAlexafffund
Olivia Pagani, Prudence A. Francis, Gini F. Fleming, Barbara Walley, Giuseppe Viale, Marco Colleoni, István Láng, Henry Gómez, Carlo Tondini, Graziella Pinotti, Angelo Di Leo, Alan S. Coates, Aron Goldhirsch, Richard D. Gelber, Meredith M. Regan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsNational Cancer InstituteMedical Research CouncilTakeda OncologyCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthIpsenAstellas PharmaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCancer Research UKNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAmerican College of Radiology Imaging NetworkNRG OncologyBristol-Myers SquibbNational Cancer Research InstituteCancer Research InstituteNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreSchweizerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Klinische KrebsforschungBreast Cancer Research FoundationSanofiOncosuissePfizer
KeywordsExemestaneMedicineTamoxifenBreast cancerInternal medicineOncologyGynecologyEstrogen receptorPopulationAdjuvantProportional hazards modelCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT)/Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) showed superior outcomes for premenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) or tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. We previously reported the magnitude of absolute improvements in freedom from any recurrence across a continuous, composite measure of recurrence risk to tailor decision making. With longer follow-up, we now focus on distant recurrence. METHODS: The TEXT/SOFT HR-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative analysis population included 4,891 women stratified by predetermined chemotherapy use. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 8-year freedom from distant recurrence were analyzed using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) methodology across subpopulations defined by the continuous composite measure of recurrence risk. For each patient, the composite risk value was obtained from a Cox model that incorporated age; nodal status; tumor size; grade; and estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Ki-67 labeling index expression levels. RESULTS: The overall rate of 8-year freedom from distant recurrence was 91.1% and ranged from approximately 100% to 63% across lowest to highest composite risks. TEXT patients who received chemotherapy had an average absolute improvement with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen plus OFS of 5.1%, and STEPP analysis showed improvements from less than 1% to more than 15% from lowest to highest composite risks. SOFT patients who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy had an average 5.2% absolute improvement with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen and reached 10% across composite risks; for tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen, the maximum improvement was approximately 3.5%. Women who did not receive chemotherapy had a more than 97% rate of 8-year freedom from distant recurrence, and improvements with exemestane plus OFS ranged from 1% to 4%. CONCLUSION: Premenopausal women with HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and high recurrence risk, as defined by clinicopathologic characteristics, may experience a 10% to 15% absolute improvement in 8-year freedom from distant recurrence with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen plus OFS or tamoxifen alone. The potential benefit of escalating endocrine therapy versus tamoxifen alone is minimal for those at low recurrence risk.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.383
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations150
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207