***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: A total of 2061 patients from seven RCTs were included for final analysis, with 1226 patients in the TOR group and 835 patients in the TAM group. The ORR for the TOR group was 25.8% (316/1226) whereas, the ORR for the TAM group was 26.9% (225/835). The pooled risk ratio (RR) suggested that the ORRs were not statistically different between the two groups (RR 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.18, P = 0.83). The median TTP was 6.1 months for the TOR group and 5.8 months for the TAM group. The median OS was 27.8 months for the TOR group and 27.6 months for the TAM group. There were no significant differences in TTP and OS between the two therapeutic groups (for TTP: HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24; for OS: HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.20). The frequencies of most adverse events were also similar in the two groups, while headache seemed to occur less in the TOR group than in the TAM group (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.74, P = 0.02). There was no significant heterogeneity between studies in most of the above meta-analyses. Sensitivity analysis did not alter the results. TOR and TAM are equally effective and the safety profile of the former is at least not worse than the latter in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer. Thus, TOR may serve as a reasonable alternative to TAM when anti-oestrogens are applicable but TAM is not the preferred choice for some reason.
Output:

Seven eligible studies were identified, all of which provided information on response to treatment (in 2061 patients), five on progression-free survival (in 1436 patients) and four on overall survival (in 1374 patients). The trials were generally old (conducted between late 1980s and early 1990s) and were of modest quality. Based on the data from these trials, 25.8% of the patients in the TOR group responded to the treatment, compared with 26.9% in the TAM group. The cancers of 50% of the patients in the TOR group had progressed after 6.1 months, compared with 5.8 months in the TAM group. Half of the patients in the TOR group survived longer than 27.8 months, compared with 27.6 months in the TAM group. The risk for progression and death in the TOR group was not significantly different from that in the TAM group. The frequencies of most adverse events were also similar in the two groups, except that the number of headaches occurring in the TOR group was only about one-seventh of that in the TAM group. However, considering the results of other large trials, we cannot exclude the possibility that this is purely a play of chance. Due to the lack of data, no conclusions can be made as to the long-term adverse effects achieved with either treatment. The evidence from this review suggests that TOR and TAM are equally effective and the safety profile of the former is at least not worse than the latter in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer. Thus, TOR may serve as a reasonable alternative to TAM when anti-oestrogens are applicable but TAM is not the preferred choice for some reason.