Abstract GS2-07: Updated results from a phase 3 randomized clinical trial in participants (pts) with 1-3 positive lymph nodes (LN), hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) with recurrence score (RS) ≤ 25 randomized to endocrine therapy (ET) +/- chemotherapy (CT): SWOG S1007 (RxPONDER)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: We previouslyreported that invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), the primary outcome, and distantdisease-free survival (DDFS), a secondary outcome, differed by menopausalstatus in a pre-specified analysis. Here,we report updates on IDFS and DDFS with additional follow-up, as well as distantrecurrence-free interval (DRFI) and post hoc analyses in premenopausal women.Methods: Eligibilitycriteria included women > 18 years of age with HR+, HER2-BC and 1-3 +LN and no contraindications to taxane and/or anthracycline basedCT. DRFI was defined as time to distant recurrence or death from breast cancer.Analyses were intent-to-treat among eligible pts. We performed a post hocanalysis evaluating IDFS between treatment arms in premenopausal pts with pN1mi.In addition, we conducted a two-year landmarked IDFS analysis by ovarianfunction suppression (OFS) or not in the ET arm, as well as by regularmenstrual periods or not in both treatment arms.Results: Among the 4,984eligible pts, there were 553 IDFS events and median follow-up of 6.1 years.Postmenopausal women do not have any IDFS or DDFS benefit with CT; however, 5-yearabsolute benefits for IDFS and DDFS with CT for premenopausal pts were 5.9% and3.3%, respectively. In pre-menopausal pts, CT was associated with improved DRFIfor all RS values < 25, with an absolute improvement of 2.3% for RS0-13 and of 2.8% for RS 14-25. Among premenopausal pts, 12.4% (n=206) had pNmi)disease. In a post hoc analysis, there was a trend for CT benefit for thosewith pNmi [hazard ratio (HR)=0.44, confidence interval (CI)=0.18-1.08]. Therewere only 22 IDFS events. Only 17.2% of premenopausal pts assigned to ETunderwent OFS in the first 24 months and in two-year landmarked analysis, therewas no IDFS difference in those who underwent OFS or not (HR=0.88,CI=0.47-1.63). In premenopausal women assigned to ET, 58.9% stopped havingperiods within the first 24 months, and have anumerically improved IDFS compared to those who continued regular periods (HR=1.48,CI: 0.92-2.40). Among premenopausal assigned to CT followed by ET, 80.8%stopped having periods within the first 24 months and have a numericallyimproved IDFS compared to those who continue to have regular periods (HR=1.56, CI:0.85-2.86).Discussion: In accordancewith the differential IDFS and DDFS benefit based upon menopausal status inS1007, premenopausal pts with 1-3+LN and RS < 25 had a statisticallysignificant improvement in DRFI with the addition of CT. A small proportion of S1007premenopausal participants underwent OFS. The role of OFS as it relates to CTbenefit cannot be determined from this study. A future randomized trial should address the clinical question if OFScan replace CT in premenopausal pts with HR+/HER2-, node-positive breast cancer.Funding: Supported by National Cancer Institute grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819,U10CA180820, U10CA180821, U10CA180868, U10CA180863, and in part by Susan G.Komen for the Cure® Research Program, The Hope Foundation for Cancer Research,Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Genomic Health, Inc. Citation Format: Kevin M Kalinsky, William E Barlow, Julie R Gralow, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Kathy S Albain, Daniel F Hayes, Nancy U Lin, Edith A Perez, Lori A Goldstein, Stephen KL Chia, Sukhbinder Dhesy-Thind, Priya Rastogi, Emilio Alba, Suzette Delaloge, Miguel Martin, Catherine M Kelly, Manuel Ruiz-Borrego, Miguel Gil-Gil, Claudia H Arce-Salinas, Etienne GC Brain, Eun Sook Lee, Jean-Yves Pierga, Begoña Bermejo, Manuel Ramos-Vasquez, Kyung Hae Jung, Jean-Marc Ferrero, Anne Schott, Steven Shak, Priyanka Sharma, Danika Lew, Jieling Miao, Debasish Tripathy, Lajos Pusztai, Gabriel Hortobagyi. Updated results from a phase 3 randomized clinical trial in participants (pts) with 1-3 positive lymph nodes (LN), hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) with recurrence score (RS) ≤ 25 randomized to endocrine therapy (ET) +/- chemotherapy (CT): SWOG S1007 (RxPONDER) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS2-07.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".