<i>MAF</i> Amplification and Adjuvant Clodronate Outcomes in Early-Stage Breast Cancer in NSABP B-34 and Potential Impact on Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Adjuvant Zoledronic Acid (ZA) study in early breast cancer (AZURE) showed correlation between a nonamplified MAF gene in the primary tumor and benefit from adjuvant ZA. Adverse ZA outcomes occurred in MAF-amplified patients. NSABP B-34 is a validation study. Methods A retrospective analysis of MAF gene status in NSABP B-34 was performed. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to standard adjuvant systemic treatment plus 3 years oral clodronate (1600 mg/daily) or placebo. Tumors were tested for MAF gene amplification and analyzed for their relationship to clodronate for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in MAF nonamplified patients. All statistical tests were 2-sided . Results MAF status was assessed in 2533 available primary tumor samples from 3311 patients. Of these, 37 withdrew consent; in 77 samples, no tumor was found; 536 assays did not meet quality standards, leaving 1883 (77.8%) evaluable for MAF assay by fluorescence in situ hybridization (947 from placebo and 936 from clodronate arms). At 5 years, in MAF nonamplified patients receiving clodronate, DFS improved by 30% (hazard ratio = 0.70, 95% confidence interval = 0.51 to 0.94; P = .02). OS improved at 5 years (hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% confidence interval = 0.37 to 0.93; P = .02) remaining statistically significant for clodronate throughout study follow-up. Conversely, adjuvant clodronate in women with MAF-amplified tumors was not associated with benefit but rather possible harm in some subgroups. Association between MAF status and menopausal status was not seen. Conclusions Nonamplified MAF showed statistically significant benefits (DFS and OS) with oral clodronate, supporting validation of the AZURE study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".