Breastfeeding After Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer: Results From the POSITIVE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE We investigated breastfeeding patterns, behaviors, and association with breast cancer (BC) outcomes in women with early hormone receptor–positive (HR+) BC who had a live birth in the POSITIVE trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS POSITIVE is a prospective trial that demonstrated no increased short-term risk of BC events in women with early HR+ BC who interrupted endocrine therapy (ET) to attempt pregnancy. We describe the frequency, duration, and laterality of breastfeeding and estimate the cumulative incidence of BC events by breastfeeding status. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 41 months, 317 patients had at least one live birth and 313 were eligible for this analysis. A total of 196 of 313 (62.6%) patients breastfed. A total of 130 of the 167 women (77.8%) who had breast-conserving surgery breastfed, and 90 of 130 (69.2%) breastfed from the unaffected breast only. Sixty-six of the 146 women (45.2%) who underwent unilateral mastectomy breastfed. The frequency of breastfeeding was higher in women older than 35 years (67.6% v 55.7%) and in those without previous children (66.4% v 48.5%). Over half (103 of 196, 52.6%) of women breastfed their first live birth for >4 months (median 4.4 months; 95% CI, 4.0 to 5.3). The cumulative incidence of a BC event at 24 months from first on-study live birth was 3.6% and 3.1% in the breastfeeding and nonbreastfeeding groups, respectively (0.5% difference; 95% CI, –4.3% to 5.2%). CONCLUSION In POSITIVE, two thirds of women who gave birth after BC diagnosis breastfed, mostly for 4 months or more. In early follow-up, we did not observe differences in BC-related events in women who breastfed compared with those who did not. These results are key for women who wish to pursue pregnancy and breastfeeding after BC.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".