MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3013217853 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-p3-11-10

Abstract P3-11-10: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in monarcHER: Abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant versus trastuzumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy in HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer

2020· article· en· W3013217853 sur OpenAlexaff
Sara M. Tolaney, Andrew Wardley, Stefania Zambelli, John Hilton, Tiffany A. Troso-Sandoval, Francesco Ricci, Seock‐Ah Im, Sung‐Bae Kim, Stephen Johnston, Arlene Chan, Shom Goel, Kristen Catron, Zhengyu Yang, M. Corona Gianford, Gregory L. Price, Fabrice André

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineFulvestrantTrastuzumabBreast cancerOncologyMetastatic breast cancerCancerQuality of life (healthcare)TamoxifenNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib is an oral selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 approved for hormone receptor (HR)+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)- metastatic breast cancer. In the randomized, 3-arm, phase 2 study monarcHER (NCT02675231) for HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer (ABC), abemaciclib in combination with trastuzumab (T) and fulvestrant (F) significantly improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival (whereas abemaciclib + T did not) versus (vs) T + physician’s choice of chemotherapy and demonstrated a tolerable safety profile. Here, patient-reported HRQoL, functioning, and symptoms are reported. Methods: In monarcHER, 237 postmenopausal (surgical, natural, or chemical ovarian suppression) women with ABC and ≥2 prior HER2+ directed therapies in the advanced setting were randomized 1:1:1 to abemaciclib (150 mg PO Q12H every 21 days) + T (IV infusion on D1 every 21 days) with F (500 mg IM on Cycle 1 D1 and D15 and Cycle 2 D8, then Q4W; Arm A) or without F (Arm B) vs T + physician’s choice of chemotherapy (per label every 21 days; Arm C). Supportive measures to manage diarrhea were permitted. Patient-reported outcomes were measured at baseline and at each cycle using the modified Brief Pain Inventory-short form (mBPI-sf) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D 5L) questionnaire was also collected. Higher scores on EORTC QLQ-C30 functional and health status/QoL scales indicate improvement whereas higher scores on EORTC QLQ-C30 symptom scales and mBPI-sf indicate worsening of symptoms/pain. The EQ-5D 5L index score was calculated from a set of item weights to derive a score of 0-1, with 1 representing the best health status. Treatment arm comparisons of change from baseline (all post-baseline visits) were conducted using a mixed model repeated measure, with .05 considered statistically significant. Clinical meaningfulness was defined as a ≥10-point score change from baseline (on a 0-100 scale) for EORTC QLQ-C30 and a 2-point score change from baseline for mBPI-sf. Results: Patient-reported outcome compliance rates were ≥90% through Cycle 15; the range for median duration of each treatment component of each arm was 7.5-10.0 cycles. Overall, no statistically significant or clinically meaningful changes from baseline differences were observed between treatment arms for mBPI-sf pain scores or EORTC QLQ-C30 global health score, function scales, or for symptoms of fatigue, dyspnea, appetite loss, or financial difficulties. Least square (LS) mean change from baseline differences showed statistically significant improvements in Arm A vs C for EORTC QLQ-C30 symptoms of pain (-6.81; p=.026) and insomnia (-6.39; p=.041). Worsening for the symptom of nausea/vomiting was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful in Arm A vs C (4.08; p=.043). Diarrhea showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful worsening in Arm A vs C (19.27; p<.001). A by-cycle analysis showed mean nausea/vomiting and diarrhea symptom scores were generally higher during earlier visits and returned to near-baseline levels after treatment discontinuation. The EQ-5D 5L index score improved in Arm A vs C, with an LS mean change from baseline difference of .05 (p=.033). Conclusions: Quality of life was maintained for patient-reported pain, global health, functioning, and most symptoms when abemaciclib was added to T + F compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy in patients with HR+, HER2+ ABC. Gastrointestinal-related symptoms were transient and consistent with the manageable, reversible adverse event profile. Citation Format: Sara M Tolaney, Andrew M Wardley, Stefania Zambelli, John F. Hilton, Tiffany A Troso-Sandoval, Francesco Ricci, Seock-Ah Im, Sung-Bae Kim, Stephen RD Johnston, Arlene Chan, Shom Goel, Kristen Catron, Zhengyu Yang, M. Corona Gianford, Gregory L Price, Fabrice André. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in monarcHER: Abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant versus trastuzumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy in HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-11-10.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,475
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,131
Tête enseignante GPT0,450
Écart entre enseignants0,318 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer ResearchMême sujetAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesTravaux en français237 207