MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract PO3-11-12: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial Comparing Morning versus Evening Dosing of Endocrine Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: Final Results (REaCT-CHRONO Study)

2024· article· en· W4396590496 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-France Savard, Mohammed Ibrahim, Gregory R. Pond, Deanna Saunders, Lisa Vandermeer, Lesley Fallowfield, Terry L. Ng, Arif Awan, Sandeep Sehdev, Ana-Alicia Beltran-Bless, M. Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityNOSM UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEveningMorningMedicineDosingEndocrine systemBreast cancerRandomized controlled trialCancerInternal medicineOncologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background. Interventions to improve tolerability and adherence to endocrine therapy (ET) are critical to the global improvement of breast cancer (BC) survivorship. The optimal time of day to take ET in terms of quality of life, side effects and adherence is unknown. This study compared a morning dose versus an evening dose of ET in patients with early-stage BC (EBC). Methods. In this pragmatic, open-label, multicenter trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) EBC were randomized (1:1) to receive either a morning dose (within 1 hour of the patient wake up time) or an evening dose of ET (within 1 hour of patient bedtime). The primary endpoint was endocrine toxicity/tolerability measured by the change in total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Subscale (FACT-ES) score from baseline (commencement of ET) to 12 weeks. The secondary endpoints included: ET toxicity/tolerability and quality of life (FACT-ES and FACT-B) from baseline to 4, 8, 12 and 52 weeks, non-persistence or non-adherence, and patient timing preference. Results. Between June 2021 and March 2022, 245 eligible patients were randomized, 122 to morning (122/245, 49.8%) and 123 to evening (123/245, 50.2%) dosing. Mean age was 61 [standard deviation (sd) 11.9], 181 patients (73.9%) were postmenopausal, 188 (76.7%) received tamoxifen, 58 (23.7%) received an aromatase inhibitor and 22 (9%) received luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone. The mean changes in the FACT-ES score from baseline to 12 weeks following the beginning of ET were -2.0 (sd=14.3) vs -5.4 (sd=16.8) in the morning vs evening arms respectively (Wilcoxon two-sample rank sum test p-value=0.22). Also, the proportion of patients with a clinically important increase (Fisher’s exact test p-value=0.54 0.89) or decrease (p-value= 0.89) in FACT-ES Scores was not statistically different between the arms. At 52 weeks, the mean changes in the FACT-ES score from baseline were -2.5 (sd=18.8) vs -4.8 (sd=15.5) in the morning vs evening arms respectively (p-value=0.23). There was no statistical difference in FACT-ES and FACT-B scores over the 52 weeks of the study. At 12 weeks, 94.5% (69/79) vs 98.7% (78/79) were still taking the ET (p-value=0.2), whereas at 52 weeks, 92.1% (58/63) vs 85.4% (41/48) were still taking ET (p-value=0.36), in the morning vs evening arms respectively. Also, 13.7% (10/73) vs 7.6% (6/79) and 3.2% (2/62) vs 12.5% (6/48) interrupted their ET at least once, in the morning vs evening arms, at 12 and 52 weeks respectively. At week 52, 57.9% (62/107) in the morning arm vs 13.5% (14/104) in the evening arm strongly preferred an ET morning dose, whereas 7.5% (8/107) vs 42.3% (44/104) strongly preferred an ET evening dose. No significant preference changes were observed in dose timing from baseline to week 52 (p-value=0.081). Conclusions. These results suggest no significant difference in quality of life or adherence if ET is taken in the morning or in the evening. Patients should be reassured that they can take ET at their preferred time. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04864405 Table 1. Mean changes between FACT scores at 12 weeks and 52 weeks from baseline for patients receiving ET morning vs evening dose. A positive value indicates the FACT score increased over time. FACT ES: Endocrine Subscale; FACT B: breast Citation Format: Marie-France Savard, Mohammed Ibrahim, Gregory Pond, Deanna Saunders, Lisa Vandermeer, Lesley Fallowfield, Terry Ng, Arif Awan, Sandeep Sehdev, Ana-Alicia Beltran-Bless, Mark Clemons. A Pragmatic Randomized Trial Comparing Morning versus Evening Dosing of Endocrine Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: Final Results (REaCT-CHRONO Study) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-11-12.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→