MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4220884345 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p5-16-11

Abstract P5-16-11: Ipatasertib (ipat) in combination with palbociclib (palbo) and fulvestrant (fulv) in patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (aBC)

2022· article· en· W4220884345 sur OpenAlexaff
Mafalda Oliveira, Aditya Bardia, Sung‐Bae Kim, Naoki Niikura, Cristina Hernándo, Gustavo Werutsky, Yoland Antill, P. Rubini Liedke, Catherine Oakman, Eriko Tokunaga, Seth A. Wander, Vanessa Krause, Toshinari Yamashita, Frauke Schimmöller, Jacob Rotmensch, Heidi Savage, Rucha Sane, Nicholas C. Turner

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPalbociclibMedicineBreast cancerFulvestrantInternal medicineCancerOncologyAromatase inhibitorTamoxifenPharmacologyMetastatic breast cancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Ipat is a potent oral AKT inhibitor that has been studied in multiple clinical trials, primarily in breast and prostate cancers. Combining fulv and AKT inhibition demonstrated efficacy in pts with HR+ aBC regardless of PI3K/AKT pathway alterations [Jones, Lancet Oncol 2020]. IPATunity150 (NCT04060862) was designed as a phase III trial with an open-label phase Ib portion adding ipat to palbo plus fulv in biomarker-unselected HR+ HER2-negative aBC. The biological rationale was to prevent or delay resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition plus endocrine therapy (ET). AKT1 alterations and PTEN loss have been implicated in resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors [Wander, Cancer Discov 2020; Costa, Cancer Discov 2020]. We report results from the open-label phase Ib portion. Patients and Methods: The primary objective was to assess safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ipat in combination with palbo and fulv; several efficacy parameters were also analyzed. Pts with measurable disease who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor and had experienced relapse during adjuvant ET were treated with ipat at a dose of 300 mg/d, d1-21 q28d, plus standard-of-care doses of palbo (125 mg/d, d1-21 q28d) plus fulv (500 mg q28d with a loading dose in cycle 1). The selected ipat dose was lower than the 400 mg typically used in other studies because of the anticipated drug-drug interaction (DDI) when combining ipat (a sensitive CYP3A4 substrate and mild-to-moderate CYP3A inhibitor) with palbo (a weak time-dependent CYP3A4 inhibitor and CYP3A substrate). Results: Of the 20 pts treated, 20% were Asian, 65% had primary endocrine resistance (relapse ≤2 years after starting adjuvant ET), 80% had received prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, and 60% had liver and/or lung metastases. At the data cutoff (19 Mar 2021; median follow-up 6.1 months), median treatment duration was 5.1, 5.9, and 5.3 months for ipat, palbo, and fulv, respectively. Treatment was ongoing in 13 pts. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 80% of pts (no grade 5). The most common AEs were diarrhea (80% any grade, 10% grade 3, no grade 4) and neutropenia (75% any grade, 45% grade 3, 20% grade 4). Other notable grade ≥3 AEs were grade 3 liver function test elevations in 10%. There were no cases of febrile neutropenia and only 1 case of pneumonitis (grade 1). AEs led to at least one dose reduction of ipat in 6 pts (30%; diarrhea n=3 [with vomiting in 1 pt], neutropenia n=3 [with fatigue in 1 pt]) and of palbo in 9 pts (45%; all for neutropenia). One pt (5%) discontinued ipat and palbo permanently due to ongoing neutropenia after protocol-defined dose reductions. As expected, a DDI led to increased ipat exposure (AUC0-24,ss ~60% and Cmax ~40%) when ipat and palbo were combined. Based on population PK analysis, palbo AUC0-24,ss was ~30% higher than reported from the PALOMA 1 and 2 trials, which was expected and consistent with previously reported physiologically based PK modeling of palbo exposure when administered with moderate CYP3A inhibitors [Yu, J Clin Pharmacol 2017]. All 20 pts had at least one post-baseline tumor assessment. Best overall response rate was 45% (95% CI: 23-68%), including confirmed responses in 7 pts (35%; 5% complete response, 30% partial response) at the clinical cutoff date. Median duration of response was 9.6 months (95% CI: 7.1-not estimable). An additional 10 pts (50%) had stable disease. Progression-free survival results were immature (events in 7 pts). There was no obvious association between efficacy and mutations in PIK3CA/AKT1 as tested in ctDNA. Conclusion: The triplet combination of ipat, fulv, and palbo had an acceptable safety profile generally consistent with that of the individual study drugs; ipat exposure was increased through a predicted DDI. Updated results will be presented. Citation Format: Mafalda Oliveira, Aditya Bardia, Sung-Bae Kim, Naoki Niikura, Cristina Hernando, Gustavo Werutsky, Yoland Antill, Pedro Liedke, Catherine Oakman, Eriko Tokunaga, Seth Wander, Vanessa Krause, Toshinari Yamashita, Frauke Schimmoller, Jacob Rotmensch, Heidi Savage, Rucha Sane, Nicholas Turner. Ipatasertib (ipat) in combination with palbociclib (palbo) and fulvestrant (fulv) in patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (aBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-16-11.

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)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,218
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,312 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations5
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer ResearchMême sujetAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesTravaux en français237 207