MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397007490 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103097

109O Adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC): Results from SOFT and TEXT phase III studies

2024· article· en· W4397007490 on OpenAlexaff
O. Metzger, Yuan-Yuan Ren, J. Huober, Roswitha Kammler, Patrizia Dell’Orto, Luciana Russo, Gini F. Fleming, Prudence A. Francis, O. Pagani, Barbara Walley, Sherene Loi, M.A. Colleoni, Beat Thuerlimann, Giuseppe Viale, Meredith M. Regan

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvasive lobular carcinomaEndocrine systemAdjuvant therapyMedicineAdjuvantOncologyGynecologyInternal medicineBreast cancerCancerHormoneInvasive ductal carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data from BIG1-98 along with pre-clinical findings point to a partial resistance to tamoxifen (T) among postmenopausal women diagnosed with ILC. The TEXT and SOFT trials assigned premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (ER+) tumors to exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (E+OFS) or T + OFS, or to T alone in SOFT only. This analysis includes centrally reviewed ER+HER2-negative tumors (n=4115) classified as invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), (n=3370) or ILC (n=345). Cox model analyses stratified by trial and chemotherapy use included histological subtype, treatment, and interaction term. A pre-specified level of significance P-interaction<0.2 was selected to retain statistical power (>80%). The analyses were adjusted by age, tumor size, nodal status, and centrally assessed Ki67 to define Luminal A-like (LA), (Ki67 < 14%) and LB-like tumors (Ki67 ≥ 14%). The primary endpoint was breast cancer free interval (BCFI). At 12-yr of median follow-up in the SOFT trial, E+OFS showed a larger treatment benefit over T in ILC (HR=0.32; 95%CI 0.12-0.91) than in IDC (HR=0.71; 95%CI 0.54-0.93), Pinteraction=0.15. Differences were less marked for T+OFS vs. T, ILC (HR=0.66 95%CI 0.31-1.42) and IDC HR=0.81 95%CI 0.63-1.05), Pinteraction=0.62. In SOFT+TEXT at 13-yrs, E+OFS vs. T+OFS consistently benefited ILC (HR=0.60 95%CI 0.31-1.15) and IDC (HR=0.70 [95%CI 0.58-0.85), Pinteraction=0.65. The table below shows consistent benefit E+OFS vs T or T+OFS for both LA and LB-like ILC tumors. In contrast LB-like IDC benefitted more from E+OFS vs. T+OFS, with LA-like IDC showing a much smaller benefit.Table: 109OTxN ptsTx HR (95% CI)Tx HR (95% CI)IDCILCIDCILCSOFTLA-likeE+OFS190310.60 (0.35-1.04)0.16 (0.03-0.78)T18320LB-likeE+OFS380240.74 (0.54-1.03)0.58 (0.14-2.33)T40722SOFT+TEXTLA-likeE+OFS341650.93 (0.59,1.47)0.48 (0.15,1.56)T+OFS35073LB-likeE+OFS952790.64 (0.52,0.79)0.70 (0.31,1.58)T+OFS97967 Open table in a new tab The benefits favoring OFS+E appeared to be greater for ILC when compared to IDC, overall and consistent within subgroups of LA- and LB-like tumors defined by Ki-67. E+OFS stands out as the most effective treatment for ILC.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO OpenSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207