Abstract S6-04: Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: Overall survival from the Phase II ‘FIRST’ study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: A clinically significant improvement in median overall survival (OS) has been reported for fulvestrant 500 mg vs fulvestrant 250 mg (26.4 months vs 22.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69, 0.96; nominal p=0.02) in the Phase III COmparisoN of Faslodex In Recurrent or Metastatic breast cancer (CONFIRM) study, following failure on prior endocrine therapy. Therefore, further evidence for OS effects of fulvestrant 500 mg was sought. The Fulvestrant fIRst-line Study comparing endocrine Treatments (FIRST) compares fulvestrant 500 mg with anastrozole in the earlier first-line treatment setting for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer. In the primary analysis (6 months after last patient was randomized) fulvestrant 500 mg was at least as effective as anastrozole for clinical benefit rate (primary endpoint) and showed a significantly longer time to progression (TTP; median TTP not reached for fulvestrant 500 mg vs 12.5 months for anastrozole; HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.39, 1.00; p=0.05). In a follow-up analysis when 79.5% of patients (pts) had discontinued study treatment, median TTP was 23.4 months for fulvestrant 500 mg vs 13.1 months for anastrozole (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47, 0.92; p=0.01). Here we report OS from FIRST. Methods: FIRST is a Phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter study (NCT00274469) comparing fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg im on Days 0, 14 and 28, and every 28 days thereafter) with anastrozole (1 mg/day po). Pts were postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic HR+ breast cancer who had not received prior endocrine therapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Kaplan-Meier curves of OS (time from randomization to death from any cause) will be compared by unadjusted log-rank test. Pts not known to have died including those lost to follow-up or with no survival information will be right-censored at last known date alive. Serious adverse events will also be reported. Results: In total, 205 pts (median age 67.0 years) were randomized from 62 centers in 9 countries (fulvestrant 500 mg: n=102; anastrozole: n=103). The first pt enrolled on Feb 6, 2006. As of May 14, 2014, 40/205 pts (19.5%) were alive across both treatment groups. 4 pts (2.0%) were lost to follow-up, 130 pts (63.4%) had died, and 31 pts [15.1%] did not participate in the OS follow-up (20 pts due to non-participation of center in the OS follow-up; other reasons included withdrawal of consent). A total of 130 events had occurred; preliminary data indicate a median OS of 50 months in the total study population. Data cut-off is planned for when approximately 65% pts have died, expected in Aug 2014. Comparative data between fulvestrant 500 mg and anastrozole for OS will be presented. Conclusions: We understand FIRST to be the only study that has demonstrated improved efficacy (ie TTP) for an alternative hormone therapy over a third-generation aromatase inhibitor for treatment of HR+ advanced breast cancer. Improved OS results would provide additional support for superior efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg over anastrozole as first-line endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with HR+ locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Citation Format: John FR Robertson, Antonio Llombart-Cussac, David Feltl, John Dewar, Marek Jasiówka, Nicola Hewson, Yuri Rukazenkov, Matthew J Ellis. Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: Overall survival from the Phase II ‘FIRST’ study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-04.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».