Fulvestrant Versus Anastrozole in Endocrine Therapy–Naïve Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer: Final Overall Survival in the Phase III FALCON Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The randomized phase III FALCON trial demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with fulvestrant versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with endocrine therapy–naïve, hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer. Herein, the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis is reported. After the primary PFS analysis, data were collected on survival, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. The final OS analysis was triggered at ≥65% maturity and ≥8 years since the last patient was enrolled. Analyses were descriptive with nominal P values (one-sided α threshold .01845). At the data cutoff (July 11, 2022), 314 (68.0%) of 462 patients had died (fulvestrant, 157/230 [68.3%], anastrozole, 157/232 [67.7%]). The final OS analysis of FALCON demonstrated no significant difference between fulvestrant and anastrozole (medians, 44.8 and 42.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.21]; P = .7579). Among patients with nonvisceral disease (n = 208), a trend showed a 15% reduction in the relative risk of death with fulvestrant versus anastrozole (median OS, 65.2 v 47.8 months; HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.20]). Data from FALCON are consistent with published evidence of long-term clinical benefit with fulvestrant and other endocrine therapies in the subset of patients with nonvisceral disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".