Abstract GS3-02: PALLET: A neoadjuvant study to compare the clinical and antiproliferative effects of letrozole with and without palbociclib
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: CDK4/6 inhibitors, such as palbociclib, are used to treat ER+ metastatic breast cancer in combination with endocrine therapy with trials ongoing in patients with primary disease. No biomarkers exist to identify those who do/do not benefit from added CDK4/6 inhibition. PALLET is an investigator-initiated/led phase II randomized trial collaboration between UK and NSABP investigators evaluating the biological and clinical effects of palbociclib with letrozole combination as neoadjuvant therapy. Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER+ primary breast cancer and tumors >2.0cm (ultrasound) were randomized to one of 4 treatment groups (3:2:2:2 ratio): Group A: letrozole (2.5mg/d) for 14 weeks; Group B: letrozole for 2 weeks followed by letrozole + palbociclib to 14 weeks; Group C: palbociclib for 2 weeks followed by letrozole + palbociclib to 14 weeks; Group D: letrozole + palbociclib for 14 weeks. Palbociclib was given 125mg/d PO on a 21 days on, 7 days off schedule. Post-14 week treatment was at the discretion of the treating clinician including letrozole until surgery. Core-cut biopsies were taken at baseline, 2 weeks and 14 weeks. Co-primary endpoints for letrozole alone vs palbociclib groups (Group A vs Groups B+C+D) were: (i) change in Ki67 (IHC) between baseline and 14 weeks (log-fold change, Mann-Whitney test); (ii) clinical response (ultrasound) after 14 weeks (4 group, ordinal, Mann-Whitney test). Complete cell-cycle arrest (CCCA) (Ki67≤2.7%) was analyzed using a logistic regression model adjusting for recruitment region. Pre-specified exploratory biomarkers included c-PARP (apoptosis). Results: 307 patients were recruited between 27 Feb 2015 and 08 Mar 2018; 103 were randomized to letrozole alone and 204 to letrozole + palbociclib. 279 (90.9%) patients were evaluable for 14 week clinical response. Clinical response was not significantly different between letrozole vs letrozole + palbociclib groups [(p=0.20; CR+PR 49.5% (46/93) vs 54.3% (101/186) and PD 5.4% (5/93) vs 3.2% (6/186)] nor was the small proportion of patients with pathological CR (1/87, 1.1% vs 6/180, 3.3%; p=0.43). 190 (61.9%) patients were evaluable for 14 week change in Ki67. The median log-fold change in Ki67 was greater with letrozole + palbociclib vs letrozole alone (-4.1 vs -2.2; p<0.001) corresponding to a geometric mean change of -97.4% vs -88.5%. Similarly, a greater proportion of patients who received letrozole + palbociclib achieved CCCA (90% vs 59%, p<0.001). 146 (47.6%) patients were evaluable for c-PARP and the log-fold change (suppression) was greater with letrozole + palbociclib vs letrozole alone (-0.80 vs -0.42; p=0.003) corresponding to a geometric mean change of -56.8% vs -31.4%. Other biomarkers of response / resistance are being evaluated. A higher proportion of patients had a grade ≥3 toxicity on letrozole + palbociclib than letrozole alone (49.8% vs 17.0%; p<0.001) mainly due to asymptomatic neutropenia. Conclusion: Adding palbociclib to letrozole markedly enhanced the suppression of malignant cell proliferation as assessed by Ki67 but did not substantially increase the clinical response of primary ER+ breast cancer over a 14-week period. Concurrent reductions in cell death may have reduced the speed of tumor shrinkage. Citation Format: Dowsett M, Jacobs S, Johnston S, Bliss J, Wheatley D, Holcombe C, Stein R, McIntosh S, Barry P, Dolling D, Snowdon C, Perry S, Batten L, Dodson A, Martins V, Modi A, Cornman C, Puhalla S, Wolmark N, Julian T, Pogue-Geile K, Robidoux A, Provencher L, Boileau JF, Shalaby I, Thirlwell M, Fisher K, Huang Bartlett C, Koehler M, Osborne K, Rimawi M. PALLET: A neoadjuvant study to compare the clinical and antiproliferative effects of letrozole with and without palbociclib [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-02.
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) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».