Ten-year update: NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 randomized trial: extended letrozole therapy in early-stage breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 trial evaluated extended letrozole therapy (ELT) in postmenopausal breast cancer patients who were disease free after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor (AI)-based therapy. Seven-year results demonstrated a nonstatistically significant trend in disease-free survival (DFS) in favor of ELT. We present 10-year outcome results. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase III trial, patients with stage I-IIIA hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, disease free after 5 years of an AI or tamoxifen followed by an AI, were randomly assigned to 5 years of letrozole or placebo. Primary endpoint was DFS, defined as time from random assignment to breast cancer recurrence, second primary malignancy, or death. All statistical tests are 2-sided. RESULTS: Between September 2006 and January 2010, 3966 patients were randomly assigned (letrozole: 1983; placebo: 1983). Median follow-up time for 3923 patients included in efficacy analyses was 10.3 years. There was statistically significant improvement in DFS in favor of letrozole compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.96; P = .01; 10-year DFS: placebo = 72.6%, letrozole = 75.9%, absolute difference = 3.3%). There was no difference in the effect of letrozole on overall survival (HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.15; P = .74). Letrozole statistically significantly reduced breast cancer-free interval events (HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.91; P = .003; absolute difference in cumulative incidence = 2.7%) and distant recurrences (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.92; P = .01; absolute difference = 1.8%). The rates of osteoporotic fractures and arterial thrombotic events did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effect of ELT on DFS persisted at 10 years. Letrozole also improved breast cancer-free interval and distant recurrences without improving overall survival. Careful assessment of potential risks and benefits is necessary for selecting appropriate candidates for ELT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".