Anthracyclines in basal breast cancer: The NCIC-CTG trial MA5 comparing adjuvant CMF to CEF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
519 Background: MA5 randomized premenopausal women with node-positive early breast cancers to cyclophosphamide- methotrexate-fluorouracil (CMF) or cyclophosphamide-epirubicin-fluorouracil (CEF) adjuvant chemotherapy. This and other trials have shown that adjuvant regimens containing anthracyclines confer significant survival benefit to breast cancer patients. Meta-analyses have revealed most benefit in women with HER2(+) or TOPO2 (+) tumors. Population-based data suggest that patients with a core basal phenotype (negative for hormone receptors and HER2, positive for CK5/6 or EGFR) conversely have worse survival on anthracycline containing vs. CMF regimens. Here we test the hypothesis specified a priori that for basal breast cancers anthracyclines may be inferior, using data from MA5. Methods: From 710 patients in MA5, blocks suitable for tissue microarray construction were recovered for 549. Immunohistochemistry for ER, PR, HER2, Ki67, CK5/6 and EGFR was obtained, allowing stratification of 511 cases into intrinsic biological subtypes by published methods (Cheang MC et al. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:1368–76). Prespecified analyses were conducted independently by the NCIC- CTG statistical centre. Results: In the CEF arm, patients with core basal tumors had a hazard ratio of 1.8 (log rank p=0.02) for overall survival (OS) relative to the other biological subtypes. In the CMF arm, there was no significant difference (HR 0.9, p = 0.7). The interaction between core basal status and treatment was borderline significant (p=0.06). Relapse free survival differences did not reach significance. Conclusions: Data from this randomized trial supports the hypothesis that anthracycline containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens are inferior to adjuvant CMF in women with basal breast cancer. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".