Abstract P3-02-02: Real-World Time-to-Treatment Discontinuation in Hormone-Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients following CDK4/6 Inhibitor Treatment, Based on Observational Data Collected Through Patient-Partnered Research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Cancer treatment decisions are often made without specific and representative information that can inform personalized treatment. The aim of this study was to determine if we can predict, based on clinical features, which treatment regimen may maximize real-world time-to-treatment discontinuation (rwTTD) after a hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patient stops responding to a first CDK4/6 inhibitor in any line. Methods: We used patient reported data (PRD) about diagnosis and treatment and medical records from 1,777 patients across the U.S. and Canada from Count Me In’s Metastatic Breast Cancer Project (MBCproject). We interviewed 17 people, academic and community based medical oncologists and MBC patients, to inform the analysis plan. Patient eligibility criteria were prior HR+ MBC diagnosis, received exactly one prior CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6) containing regimen, start date of any subsequent regimen within four months of the end date of the CDK4/6-containing regimen, and completion of MBCproject’s follow-up questionnaire at least one month after the start date of the subsequent regimen. We processed RWD from the follow-up questionnaire, performed chart review in ambiguous cases of patient eligibility, performed conformance, completeness, and plausibility verification checks to determine the dataset’s fit-for-use, and described treatment variation seen in real-world settings. We designed a new user, active-comparator cohort study with rwTTD as the continuous outcome measure, used known and hypothesized confounders to control for treatment-by-indication bias, assessed covariate balance across cohorts, and conducted Cox proportional hazards (PH) outcome regressions to identify clinically relevant associations and estimate treatment effects across regimens. The analysis plan was publicly registered with the Center for Open Science prior to performing the analysis. Results: 261 eligible HR+ MBC patients were identified, with 110 unique pairs of CDK4/6-containing and subsequent regimens. The most common CDK4/6-containing regimen was Letrozole and Palbociclib (n=98) and subsequent regimen was Capecitabine (n=63). Three mutually exclusive and clinically relevant groupings of subsequent regimens chosen for analysis were chemotherapy only (n=99), fulvestrant-containing (n=53), and everolimus-containing (n=42). Among patients in these three groups, 93.9%+ are white race, 95%+ are non-hispanic, 2.7-9.4% live in a medically underserved area, 7.1-13.1% have HR+/HER2+ MBC, mean age at subsequent treatment was 52.6-53.8 years, 17-36% had bone-only metastasis and 14.3-25.3% had liver metastasis at MBC diagnosis, median number of past treatment regimens was one, and median time on CDK4/6-containing regimen was 9-14 months. The median rwTTD was 9, 15, and 5 months in the three groups, respectively. Out of 11 covariates, nine covariates failed to reject the null hypothesis that the distribution of values are the same across the three cohorts (p>0.05). Outcome regression Cox PH revealed rwTTD hazard ratio (HR) of 2.52 [1.53-4.15; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for presence of liver metastasis, HR of 1.09 [0.63-1.89; 95% CI] for presence of bone-only metastasis, HR of 2.00 [1.20-3.33; 95% CI] for everolimus-containing regimen vs. chemotherapy only, HR of 0.85 [0.50-1.46; 95% CI] for fulvestrant-containing regimen vs. chemotherapy only, and HR of 0.82 [0.65-1.00; 95% CI] for every six months rwTTD on previous CDK4/6-containing regimen. Conclusion: In this cohort, chemotherapy was the most common treatment regimen following CDK4/6 even in second and third line settings and in patients with bone-only metastasis, which is a deviation from guideline-based treatment for many HR+ MBC patients. PRD helps develop hypotheses about patient response to treatment following CDK4/6 that can be further evaluated in larger, more diverse observational studies and clinical trials. Table 1. Characteristics of eligible patients who received chemotherapy only, everolimus containing, or fulvestrant containing regimens. Citation Format: Ariel B. Carmeli, Seth A. Wander, Mary McGillicuddy, Caroline Block, Nikhil Wagle. Real-World Time-to-Treatment Discontinuation in Hormone-Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients following CDK4/6 Inhibitor Treatment, Based on Observational Data Collected Through Patient-Partnered Research [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-02-02.
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) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
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 ».