MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198257986 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-841103/v1

Definitive Results of a Phase III Adjuvant Trial Comparing Six Cycles of FEC-100 to Four Cycles of AC in Women with Operable Node-negative Breast Cancer: The NSABP B-36 Trial (NRG Oncology)

2021· preprint· en· W3198257986 on OpenAlexaff
Hanna Bandos, Priya Rastogi, Samuel A. Jacobs, André Robidoux, Louis Fehrenbacher, Patrick J. Ward, Jonathan Polikoff, Adam Brufsky, Louise Provencher, Alexander Paterson, John Hamm, Robert L. Carolla, Luis Báez-Díaz, Thomas B. Julian, Sandra M. Swain, T. Mamounas, Norman Wolmark

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineAdjuvantOncologyInternal medicineNode (physics)GynecologyCancerPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract PURPOSE: Results from adjuvant trials evaluating 6 cycles of epirubicin-based chemotherapy regimens suggested these programs may be more effective than 4 cycles of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: NSABP B-36 was a phase III clinical trial originally designed as a 2x2 factorial study comparing 6 cycles of FEC-100 (5-FU, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide) to 4 cycles of conventional AC (Adriamycin/cyclophosphamide) with celecoxib or placebo. Shortly after activation, concerns regarding increased cardiovascular risks among selective COX-2 inhibitors resulted in a decision to remove the celecoxib/placebo from the trial. Women with histologically node-negative invasive breast cancer who had undergone primary surgery with a lumpectomy or total mastectomy were eligible. Primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS).RESULTS: Between May 2004-July 2008, 2,722 patients were enrolled. Administration of FEC-100 did not result in improvement in DFS compared to AC (HR=1.09; 95% CI 0.92-1.29, p-value=0.31). The effect of FEC-100 compared to AC on DFS was significantly different for receptor-positive (HR=1.32, 95% CI=1.05-1.66) compared to receptor-negative patients (HR=0.86, 95% CI=0.66-1.11) (treatment-by-receptor status interaction p-value=0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in the effect of treatment on overall survival (OS) with FEC-100 compared to AC (HR=1.06; 95% CI 0.84-1.35, p-value=0.61). Overall, Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more frequent in the FEC-100 group.CONCLUSIONS: The results of B-36 do not support use of six-cycle anthracycline-based regimens in node-negative breast cancer. Prolongation of anthracycline-based therapy with FEC-100 does not improve DFS or OS, relative to AC for 4 cycles, and was associated with expected increases in toxicity. A statistically significant interaction between treatment and hormone receptor status favoring AC in hormone-receptor-positive breast cancers is consistent with the hypothesis that optimal duration of chemotherapy may be four cycles in these patients. Late cardiac events and deaths prior to recurrence or second cancer were infrequent on both arms, but slightly higher with FEC-100.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00087178

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207