MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367833987 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2212856

Interrupting Endocrine Therapy to Attempt Pregnancy after Breast Cancer

2023· article· en· W4367833987 on OpenAlexaff
Ann H. Partridge, 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 Eun Lee, Janice M. Walshe, Manuel Ruíz‐Borrego, Halle C. F. Moore, Christobel Saunders, Vesna Bjelic‐Radisic, Sneẑana Šušnjar, Fátima Cardoso, Karen L. Smith, Teresa I. Ferreiro, Karin Ribi, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Roswitha Kammler, Sarra El-Abed, Giuseppe Viale, Martine Piccart, Larissa A. Korde, Aron Goldhirsch, Richard D. Gelber, Olivia Pagani

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersETOP IBCSG Partners FoundationNational Cancer InstituteECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research GroupNational Institutes of HealthRising Tide FoundationAmerican College of Radiology Imaging NetworkNRG OncologyRising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer ResearchKorea Breast Cancer FoundationAlliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology FoundationGateway for Cancer ResearchSchweizerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Klinische KrebsforschungBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsEndocrine systemMedicinePregnancyBreast cancerObstetricsCancerOncologyGynecologyInternal medicineHormoneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prospective data on the risk of recurrence among women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer who temporarily discontinue endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a single-group trial in which we evaluated the temporary interruption of adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy in young women with previous breast cancer. Eligible women were 42 years of age or younger; had had stage I, II, or III disease; had received adjuvant endocrine therapy for 18 to 30 months; and desired pregnancy. The primary end point was the number of breast cancer events (defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence of invasive breast cancer or new contralateral invasive breast cancer) during follow-up. The primary analysis was planned to be performed after 1600 patient-years of follow-up. The prespecified safety threshold was the occurrence of 46 breast cancer events during this period. Breast cancer outcomes in this treatment-interruption group were compared with those in an external control cohort consisting of women who would have met the entry criteria for the current trial. RESULTS: Among 516 women, the median age was 37 years, the median time from breast cancer diagnosis to enrollment was 29 months, and 93.4% had stage I or II disease. Among 497 women who were followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74.0%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (63.8%) had at least one live birth. In total, 365 babies were born. At 1638 patient-years of follow-up (median follow-up, 41 months), 44 patients had a breast cancer event, a result that did not exceed the safety threshold. The 3-year incidence of breast cancer events was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3 to 11.6) in the treatment-interruption group and 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6 to 10.8) in the control cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Among select women with previous hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer, temporary interruption of endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy did not confer a greater short-term risk of breast cancer events, including distant recurrence, than that in the external control cohort. Further follow-up is critical to inform longer-term safety. (Funded by ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation and others; POSITIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02308085.).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations215
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207