Historical early treatment effects of adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer in high-risk subgroups: Reanalysis of BIG 1-98, SOFT and TEXT.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
508 Background: Clinical trials testing adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) have not historically limited enrollment to patients with clinically high-risk breast cancer (BC), nor estimated treatment (trt) effects prior to 5 yrs. In light of recent trial results for adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors, we estimated early relative and absolute trt effects of aromatase inhibitor (AI) vs tamoxifen (T), with ovarian suppression (OFS) if premenopausal, in high risk subgroups. Methods: From pts enrolled in adjuvant phase 3 randomized clinical trials BIG 1-98 (postmenopausal, 5yr AI v T), TEXT (5yr AI+OFS v T+OFS) and SOFT (5yr AI+OFS v T+OFS v T), we identified subgroups with HR+/HER2- BC and high risk features (≥4 pLN; or 1-3 pLN with grade 3, pT≥5 cm and/or Ki-67≥20% [retrospectively centrally assessed]). TEXT randomized at start of adjuvant trt; BIG 1-98 and SOFT after chemotherapy. Disease-free survival (DFS) was defined from randomization to invasive recurrence at local, regional, distant or contralateral breast, second non-breast malignancy or death. We estimated trt effects as differences in 2, 3 and 5yr DFS Kaplan-Meier estimates (KM diffs at t yrs) and hazard ratios over time intervals of 0-2, 0-3 and 0-5 yrs (HRs over 0 to t yrs) to approximate the maturity of trial results with increasing follow-up. Results: The high-risk HR+/HER2- subgroups were 695/4922, 707/2660 and 526/3047 pts in BIG 1-98, TEXT and SOFT with 202, 122, 142 DFS events observed by 5 yrs since randomization. 60%, 46% and 44% of pts had ≥4 pLNs; 42%, 90% and 92% had chemotherapy. The table summarizes results. Conclusions: In re-analysis of clinical high risk HR+/HER2- subgroups of 3 trials each ̃700 pts, 5 yrs AI vs T had similar magnitude of early trt effects after 2-3 yrs follow-up of all pts vs trt effects observed after 27 mos median follow-up in monarchE trial (HR=0.70; KM diffs 2.7% at 2 yrs, 5.4% at 3 yrs; n=5637). Relative and absolute trt effects sometimes diminished when estimated over 5 yrs rather than over 2 yrs, but meaningful absolute differences remained at 5 yrs in contrast to Penelope-B trial results. Design and interpretation of high risk HR+/HER2- early BC trials may depend on timing of randomization and selection of backbone adjuvant trts; follow-up >5 yrs must remain standard. [Table: see text]
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".