Updated results from the phase III ALTTO trial (BIG 2-06; NCCTG (Alliance) N063D) comparing one year of anti-HER2 therapy with lapatinib alone (L), trastuzumab alone (T), their sequence (T→L) or their combination (L+T) in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
502 Background: Pre-specified 5-year analyses of the phase III Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimisation (ALTTO) Trial defined in Amendments 11&12. Methods: From June 2007 to July 2011, 8381 patients (pts) were randomised from 946 sites in 44 countries to receive either L+T, T→L, L, or T. In 2011, due to futility the L arm was closed and is not included in this analysis. The primary end point is disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary objectives include treatment comparisons with respect to overall survival (OS), time to recurrence (TTR), time to distant recurrence (TDR), cardiac and overall safety and tolerability. Primary analysis results of the study were published in JCO 2015 34:1034-1042. This updated analysis occurs at a 6.9 yrs median follow up (MFU). Results: All patients have reached 5-years of follow-up. 705 DFS events for L+T vs T have been observed. HR for DFS was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.74-1.00; 6-yr DFS%=85% vs 82%) for L+T vs T and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.81-1.08; 6-yr DFS%=84% vs 82%) for T→L vs. T. The 6-year OS was 93%, 92%, and 91% for L+T, T→L, and T, respectively. HR for OS was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70-1.06) for L+T vs. T and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.71-1.08) for T→L vs. T. DFS differences for L+T vs. T were slightly higher for the hormone-receptor(ER)-negative [HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.64-1.00; 6-yr DFS%=84% vs. 80%)] and the sequential chemotherapy [HR 0.83 (95% CI, 0.69-1.00; 6-yr DFS%=83% vs.79%)] subgroups. There were no differences in sites of first DFS events according to treatment arm for CNS, loco-regional, or distant recurrences. There were more AEs related to study treatment (L+T 93% vs T 64%). The incidence of primary cardiac end points was low: 1% for L+T, 0.5% for T→L and 0.9% for T. Conclusions: The HRs for this updated analysis are similar to those from the Primary Analysis and the event rate remains lower than anticipated (705 vs 850 planned). Cardiac toxicity remains low. This analysis suggests that HER2+/ER- tumors may have a different biology than HER2+/ER+ and may benefit more from dual HER2 blockade. Long-term follow up continues. Clinical trial information: NCT00490139.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".