Updated overall survival (OS) results from the phase III MONALEESA-3 trial of postmenopausal patients (pts) with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with fulvestrant (FUL) ± ribociclib (RIB).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
1001 Background: The Phase III MONALEESA-3 trial (NCT02422615) previously demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in OS with RIB, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), plus FUL compared with placebo (PBO) plus FUL as first-line (1L) or second-line (2L) treatment in postmenopausal pts with HR+/HER2− ABC (median, not reached vs 40.0 mo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92, P =.00455). This analysis was final per the protocol; following the unblinding of the study, pts still on study treatment in the PBO arm were allowed to cross over to the RIB arm. We report an exploratory analysis of OS after an additional median 16.9 mo of follow-up, allowing for further characterization of long-term survival benefits of RIB. Methods: Postmenopausal pts with HR+/HER2− ABC were randomized 2:1 to receive RIB + FUL or PBO + FUL in 1L and 2L settings. Updated OS was evaluated by Cox proportional hazards model and summarized using Kaplan-Meier methods. Additional postprogression endpoints such as progression-free survival 2 (PFS2), time to chemotherapy (CT), and CT-free survival were also evaluated and summarized. Results: At the data cutoff (Oct 30, 2020), the median follow-up was 56.3 mo (min, 52.7 mo) and 68 (14.0%) and 21 (8.7%) patients were still on treatment in the RIB vs PBO arms, respectively. With this extended follow-up, RIB + FUL continued to demonstrate an OS benefit vs PBO + FUL (median, 53.7 vs 41.5 mo; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90). RIB + FUL had prolonged OS vs PBO + FUL in the 1L (median, not reached vs 51.8 mo; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.88) and 2L subgroups (median, 39.7 vs 33.7 mo; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.59-1.04). Subgroup analyses also showed a consistent OS benefit compared with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population for most subgroups. PFS2, time to CT, and CT-free survival for the ITT population favored RIB + FUL (Table). Among pts who discontinued study treatment, 81.9% and 86.4% received a next-line subsequent antineoplastic therapy, while 14.0% and 30.0% received a CDK4/6i as any subsequent line in the RIB vs PBO arms, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: The previously demonstrated robust and clinically meaningful OS benefit with RIB + FUL compared with PBO + FUL was maintained after almost 5 years of follow-up in postmenopausal pts with HR+/HER2− ABC. The OS benefit of RIB was observed in the 1L and 2L subgroups, which further supports the use of RIB in these populations. The results also demonstrated a significant delay in the use of subsequent CT with RIB vs PBO. Clinical trial information: NCT02422615 .[Table: see text]
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 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 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 ».