ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024
Is the CTS5 a helpful decision-making tool in the extended adjuvant therapy setting?
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized, Open, Comparative Multicentre Trial of 3 Years Anastrozole Treatment vs. 3 Years no Treatment in Postmenopausal Patients With Breast Cancer Who Have Completed 5 Years Adjuvant Hormone Therapy.
A Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Tamoxifen vs. Tamoxifen + Aminoglutethimide in Postmenopausal, Hormone Receptor-positive Patients
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective analysis to validate the CTS5 in patients from El Álamo IV registry and GEICAM adjuvant studies.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Clinical Treatment Score post-5 years (CTS5) is an easy-to-use tool estimating the late distant recurrence (LDR) risk in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer after 5 years of endocrine therapy (ET). Apart from evaluating the prognostic value and calibration accuracy of CTS5, the aim of this study is to clarify if this score is able to identify patients at higher risk for LDR who will benefit from extended ET.
methodsPrognostic power, calibration, and predictive value of the CTS5 was tested in patients of the prospective ABCSG-06 and -06a trials (n = 1254 and 860 patients, respectively). Time to LDR was analyzed with Cox regression models.
resultsHigher rates of LDR in the years five to ten were observed in high- and intermediate-risk patients compared to low-risk patients (HR 4.02, 95%CI 2.26-7.15, p < 0.001 and HR 1.93, 95%CI 1.05-3.56, p = 0.035). An increasing continuous CTS5 was associated with increasing LDR risk (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.74-2.85, p < 0.001). Miscalibration of CTS5 in high-risk patients could be observed. Although not reaching significance, high-risk patients benefitted the most from prolonged ET with an absolute reduction of the estimated 5-year LDR of - 6.1% (95%CI - 14.4 to 2.3).
conclusionThe CTS5 is a reliable prognostic tool that is well calibrated in the lower and intermediate risk groups with a substantial difference of expected versus observed LDR rates in high-risk patients. While a numerical trend in favoring prolonged ET for patients with a higher CTS5 was found, a significantly predictive value for the score could not be confirmed. CLINICAL
trial registrationABCSG-06 trial (NCT00309491), ABCSG-06A7 1033AU/0001 (NCT00300508).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.