MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract GS4-09: Pregnancy Outcome and Safety of Interrupting Therapy for women with endocrine responsIVE breast cancer: Primary Results from the POSITIVE Trial (IBCSG 48-14/BIG 8-13)

2023· article· en· W4322774045 on OpenAlexaff
Ann Partridge, Olivia Pagani, Samuel M. Niman, Monica Ruggeri, Fedro A. Peccatori, Hatem A. Azim, Marco Colleoni, Cristina Saura, Chikako Shimizu, Anna Barbro Sætersdal, Judith R. Kroep, Audrey Mailliez, Ellen Warner, Virginia F. Borges, Frédéric Amant, Andrea Gombos, Akemi Kataoka, Christine Rousset‐Jablonski, Simona Borštnar, Junko Takei, Jeong Eon Lee, Janice M. Walshe, Manuel Ruíz Borrego, Halle C. F. Moore, Christobel Saunders, Vesna Bjelic‐Radisic, Sneẑana Šušnjar, Fátima Cardoso, Karen L. Smith, Teresa Ferreiro Vilarino, Karin Ribi, Kathryn Ruddy, Sarra El-Abed, Martine Piccart, Larissa A. Korde, Aron Goldhirsch, Richard D. Gelber

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyBreast cancerInterim analysisPopulationClinical endpointCancerObstetricsGynecologyRandomized controlled trialOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Pregnancy after breast cancer (BC) is of substantial importance for many young women at diagnosis and during follow-up. BC treatment including standard endocrine therapy (ET) (5-10 years) may reduce ovarian reserve and the chances of subsequent successful pregnancy, given conception is contraindicated during ET. A temporary interruption of ET to attempt and carry a pregnancy in this population has never been prospectively studied. Methods: POSITIVE is a single-arm, prospective, investigator-initiated, international trial evaluating the safety and pregnancy outcomes of interrupting ET for young women with early-stage hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) BC who desire pregnancy. The primary objective is to assess the risk of BC relapse associated with ET interruption for ~2 years to achieve pregnancy. Women ≤42 years with stage I-III HR+ BC who received adjuvant ET (SERM alone, GnRH analogue plus SERM or AI) for 18 to 30 months and wished to interrupt ET to attempt pregnancy were eligible. The primary endpoint is breast cancer free interval (BCFI) defined as the time from enrollment to the first BC event (local, regional, distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral BC). Planned sample size was 500 patients. Three interim analyses of BCFI were reviewed by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) to assure a 95% chance of stopping the trial early if the annual BCFI event rate exceeded 4%; with primary analysis triggered after 1600 patient years of follow-up (pyfu) and no more than 46 BCFI events defined as the safety threshold. The DSMC recommended continuing the study following each interim analysis. We now report the primary results. Results: From 12/2014 to 12/2019, 518 women were enrolled. At enrollment, the median age of participants was 37 years (27-43 years); 75.0% were nulliparous, 93.4% had stage I/II disease, 66.3% node-negative. Median time from BC diagnosis to enrollment was 29 months (IQR: 25-32). Tamoxifen alone was the most prescribed ET (41.7%), followed by tamoxifen+ovarian function suppression (35.7%). 62.0% of participants had received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 41 months (1638 pyfu), 44 participants had experienced a BCFI event, not exceeding the pre-specified safety threshold of 46 events. The 3-year BCFI failure percent was 8.9% (95% CI: 6.3 to 11.6%), similar to the 9.2% (95% CI: 7.6 to 10.8%) calculated in the comparative external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials (Sun et al, Breast 2020). Of 497 women followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74.0%) had at least one pregnancy, 317 (63.8%) had at least one live birth, with a total of 365 babies born. Based on competing risk analysis, 76.3% of patients resumed ET (half within 26 months), 8.3% had BCFI event/death before ET resumption, and 15.4% had not resumed ET yet. Conclusions: The POSITIVE trial demonstrates that for young women with early HR+ BC desiring pregnancy, temporary interruption of ET to attempt pregnancy does not confer a greater short-term risk of recurrence than that observed in a modern historical control group that did not interrupt ET. Most participants have had a live birth. Further follow-up is planned to confirm long-term safety. These results should be considered in counselling BC patients desiring future pregnancy. Citation Format: Ann Partridge, Olivia Pagani, Samuel M. Niman, Monica Ruggeri, Fedro Alessandro A. Peccatori, Hatem A. Azim, Marco Colleoni, Cristina Saura, Chikako Shimizu, Anna Saetersdal, Judith Kroep, Audrey Mailliez, Ellen Warner, Virginia F. Borges, Frédéric Amant, Andrea Gombos, Akemi Kataoka, Christine Rousset-Jablonski, Simona Borstnar, Junko Takei, Jeong Eon Lee, Janice Walshe, Manuel Ruiz Borrego, Halle Moore, Christobel Saunders, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Snezana Susnjar, Fatima Cardoso, Karen L. Smith, Teresa Ferreiro Vilarino, Karin Ribi, Kathryn Ruddy, Sarra El-Abed, Martine Piccart, Larissa A. Korde, Aron Goldhirsch, Richard D. Gelber. Pregnancy Outcome and Safety of Interrupting Therapy for women with endocrine responsIVE breast cancer: Primary Results from the POSITIVE Trial (IBCSG 48-14/BIG 8-13) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-09.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207