MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311018682 · doi:10.1200/jco.22.01065

Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Premenopausal Breast Cancer: 12-Year Results From SOFT

2022· article· en· W4311018682 on OpenAlexaff
Prudence A. Francis, Gini F. Fleming, István Láng, Eva Ciruelos, Hervé Bonnefoi, Meritxell Bellet, Antônio Bernardo, Miguel Ángel Climent, Silvana Martino, Begoña Bermejo, Harold J. Burstein, Nancy E. Davidson, Charles E. Geyer, Barbara Walley, James N. Ingle, Robert E. Coleman, Bettina Müller, Fanny Le Du, Sibylle Loibl, Eric P. Winer, Barbara Ruepp, Sherene Loi, Marco Colleoni, Alan S. Coates, Richard D. Gelber, Aron Goldhirsch, Meredith M. Regan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCilagNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreGenentechNational Institutes of HealthIpsenMorphoSysAstellas PharmaEisaiNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKMerck KGaAECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research GroupBeiGeneMedical Research CouncilLes Laboratories Pierre FabreTG TherapeuticsDaiichi-SankyoCelldex TherapeuticsCelgeneNRG OncologyAmerican College of Radiology Imaging NetworkDaiichi Sankyo EuropeNational Cancer InstituteGilead SciencesOncosuisseGlaxoSmithKlineNational Cancer Research InstituteNational Health and Medical Research CouncilEUSA PharmaCancer Research InstituteAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbPfizerPlexxikonRelay TherapeuticsSchweizerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Klinische KrebsforschungAmgenBreast Cancer Research FoundationSanofi
KeywordsExemestaneTamoxifenMedicineBreast cancerHazard ratioOncologyInternal medicineGynecologyCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00066690 ) randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer to 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (OFS), or exemestane plus OFS. The primary analysis compared disease-free survival (DFS) between tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone; exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen was a secondary objective. After 8 years, SOFT reported a significant reduction in recurrence and improved overall survival (OS) with adjuvant tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. Here, we report outcomes after median follow-up of 12 years. DFS remained significantly improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98) with a 12-year DFS of 71.9% with tamoxifen, 76.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 79.0% with exemestane plus OFS. OS was improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.01) and was 86.8% with tamoxifen, 89.0% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 89.4% with exemestane plus OFS at 12 years. Among those who received prior chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2–negative tumors, OS was 78.8% with tamoxifen, 81.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 84.4% with exemestane plus OFS. In conclusion, after 12 years, there remains a benefit from including OFS in adjuvant endocrine therapy, with an absolute improvement in OS more apparent with higher baseline risk of recurrence. [Media: 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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations58
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207