Time-varying hazard rates reveal patterns of progression in HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer: Towards risk-adapted monitoring
Rattachement africain : it, ua. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: optimal imaging intervals for patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains undefined. Aim of this study was to analyze the temporal patterns of disease progression to identify high risk subgroups that may benefit from intensified monitoring. METHODS: we analyzed 149 hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative MBC patients prospectively enrolled in the MAGNETIC.1 trial (NCT05814224) and treated with first line endocrine therapy. Hazard rates (HR) for disease progression were determined according to clinico-pathological and liquid biopsy features. RESULTS: in the overall population, two distinct progression-risk peaks emerged at 2-3 months (32.9/1000 person-months) and at 24 months (28.0/1000). Higher risk of progression was observed in lobular carcinoma (61.1) [HR 61.12 per 1000 person month (pm)], progesterone receptor-negative status (HR 39.07), fulvestrant-based treatment (HR 46.88), liver metastases (HR 59.00), and presence of ≥ 3 metastatic sites (HR 40.10). CONCLUSIONS: Hazard distribution in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative MBC is biphasic and modulated by readily available clinical variables. High-risk subgroups may benefit from intensified radiologic and liquid-biopsy surveillance during the first three months and around two years after treatment start.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Time-varying hazard rates reveal patterns of progression in HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer: Towards risk-adapted monitoring
- Date Crossref
- 01/10/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.