Prognostic implications of risk definitions from the monarchE and NATALEE trials

Luca Arecco, Eva Blondeaux, Marco Bruzzone, Grazia Arpino, Carmine De Angelis, Michelino De Laurentiis, Roberta Caputo, Alessandra Fabi, Valeria Sanna, Stefania Gori, Fabio Puglisi, Luca Boni, Simone Nardin, Irene Giannubilo, Marta Perachino, Roberto Borea, Elisa Agostinetto, Evandro de Azambuja, Matteo Lambertini, Lucia Del Mastro
{"title":"Prognostic implications of risk definitions from the monarchE and NATALEE trials","authors":"Luca Arecco, Eva Blondeaux, Marco Bruzzone, Grazia Arpino, Carmine De Angelis, Michelino De Laurentiis, Roberta Caputo, Alessandra Fabi, Valeria Sanna, Stefania Gori, Fabio Puglisi, Luca Boni, Simone Nardin, Irene Giannubilo, Marta Perachino, Roberto Borea, Elisa Agostinetto, Evandro de Azambuja, Matteo Lambertini, Lucia Del Mastro","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djaf031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The monarchE and NATALEE trials employed different high-risk inclusion criteria. Main objective is to assess prognostic differences based on their inclusion criteria. Methods Patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer enrolled in the phase III MIG1, GIM2, and GIM3 trials were categorized as high-risk cohort (HRC) and low-risk cohort (LRC) according to the inclusion criteria of monarchE and NATALEE trials. Subsequently, they were further classified in three different cohorts concordant LRC (low-risk for both trials), discordant risk cohort (high-risk for only one trial), and concordant HRC (high-risk for both trials). Main outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Among 4,795 patients included, 1,343 (28.0%) and 2,689 (56.1%) were classified as HRC according to the monarchE and NATALEE, respectively.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The monarchE and NATALEE trials employed different high-risk inclusion criteria. Main objective is to assess prognostic differences based on their inclusion criteria. Methods Patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer enrolled in the phase III MIG1, GIM2, and GIM3 trials were categorized as high-risk cohort (HRC) and low-risk cohort (LRC) according to the inclusion criteria of monarchE and NATALEE trials. Subsequently, they were further classified in three different cohorts concordant LRC (low-risk for both trials), discordant risk cohort (high-risk for only one trial), and concordant HRC (high-risk for both trials). Main outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Among 4,795 patients included, 1,343 (28.0%) and 2,689 (56.1%) were classified as HRC according to the monarchE and NATALEE, respectively.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of screening for HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancers: a microsimulation-based modeling study Prognostic implications of risk definitions from the monarchE and NATALEE trials Response to Oleribe Comprehensive Genome Profiling for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Metastatic Tumors: Real-World Evidence Meta-Analysis and Registry Data Implementation The association between clinical trial participation, drug costs, and performance in the Oncology Care Model (OCM)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1