109O Adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC): Results from SOFT and TEXT phase III studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".