Tamoxifen (TAM) or a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) with ribociclib (RIB) in premenopausal patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer (ABC): MONALEESA-7 subgroup analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In the MONALEESA-7 study (NCT02278120), RIB + TAM/NSAI + goserelin significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and had a manageable safety profile vs placebo (PBO) + TAM/NSAI in premenopausal pts with HR+, HER2– ABC. Here we present data for the TAM and NSAI subgroups. Methods: Premenopausal pts (N = 672) with HR+, HER2– ABC (≤1 line of chemotherapy; no prior endocrine therapy [ET] for ABC) were randomized 1:1 to RIB (600 mg/day, 3 weeks on/1 week off) or PBO + either TAM (20 mg/day) or NSAI (letrozole [2.5 mg/day] or anastrozole [1 mg/day]) + goserelin (3.6 mg every 28 days). Primary endpoint: locally assessed PFS. A predefined subgroup analysis evaluated PFS by ET partner (TAM or NSAI). Results: 177 (26%) pts received TAM (RIB vs PBO: 87 vs 90) and 495 (74%) received an NSAI (248 vs 247). As of August 20, 2017, treatment was ongoing in 49% vs 31% of pts in the TAM subgroup and 53% vs 38% in the NSAI subgroup; the most common reason for discontinuation was disease progression (TAM 39% vs 54%; NSAI 35% vs 51%). PFS was prolonged for RIB vs PBO in the TAM (median 22.1 months [mo] vs 11.0 mo; hazard ratio 0.585; 95% CI 0.387–0.884) and NSAI (median 27.5 mo vs 13.8 mo; hazard ratio 0.569; 95% CI 0.436–0.743) subgroups. The most common Grade (G) 3 adverse events (AEs; regardless of causality; ≥5% of pts; RIB vs PBO) were neutropenia (TAM 39% vs 2%; NSAI 55% vs 3%), leukopenia (TAM 8% vs 1%; NSAI 15% vs 1%), elevated GGT (TAM 6% vs 3%; NSAI <1% vs 4%), elevated ALT (TAM 7% vs 2%; NSAI 5% vs 1%), and hypertension (TAM 6% vs 2%; NSAI 2% vs 3%); the only G4 AE in ≥ 5% of pts was neutropenia (TAM 9% vs 1%; NSAI 10% vs < 1%). Increases >60 ms from baseline in the QTcF interval (RIB vs PBO; TAM 16% vs 7%; NSAI 7% vs 0%) and new QTcF >480 ms (TAM 11% vs 1%; NSAI 5% vs 1%) were more common with TAM; there were no associated clinical symptoms or arrhythmias. Conclusions: RIB demonstrated consistent treatment benefit vs PBO in premenopausal pts with HR+, HER2– ABC regardless of ET partner (TAM or NSAI). The safety profiles of RIB + ET were manageable and consistent, with the exception of QTc findings, which were more prevalent with TAM. Clinical trial identification: NCT02278120 and October 29, 2014. Editorial acknowledgement: Editorial assistance was provided by Kate Gaffey PhD of ArticulateScience Ltd. Legal entity responsible for the study: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Disclosure: A. Bardia: Advisory role: Novartis, Genentech, Pfizer, Spectrum Pharma and Biothernostics. S. Campos-Gomez: Consulting/advisory role: Roche, outside submitted work. S.A. Hurvitz: Grants: Amgen, Bayer, BI Pharma, Genentech, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, PUMA, Merrimack, Medivation, Dignatana, OBI Pharma, Biomarin, Cascadian, Seattle Genetics; Travel expenses: Lilly, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Bayer outside the submitted work. Grants: Novartis, grants and non-financial support: Roche, grants and non-financial support: Merck, grants: AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; Honoraria, speaker/consulting role, speakers bureau: Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer. S-A. Im: Personal fees: Novartis; Advisory role: Pfizer, during the conduct of the study; Advisory role: Hanmi, Roche; Research grants: AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. L. Chow: Travel, accommodation and expenses fees: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer. P. Wheatley-Price: Personal fees: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly Oncology, BMS, Merck, Takeda, during the conduct of the study. J. Alam: Employment: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. O. Kong, I. Diaz-Padilla, M. Miller: Employment and equity ownership: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. D. Tripathy: Grants, personal fees and support for abstract/manuscript and support for conducting trial (paid to institution), consulting fees for service on the trial Steering Committee from Novartis, during the conduct of the study; Consulting fees: Pfizer, outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».