MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract S6-03: Randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant alone or in combination with bortezomib in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors: A New York cancer consortium trial

2015· article· en· W1933865299 on OpenAlexaff
Kerin B. Adelson, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy, Joseph A. Sparano, Paul J. Christos, George Raptis, Miguel C Villalona, X. Cynthia, Dawn L. Hershman, Joseph Baar, Paula Klein, Tessa Cigler, G. Thomas Budd, Yelena Novik, Antoinette R. Tan, Susan Tannenbaum, Anupama Goel, Ellis Levine, Charles L. Shapiro, Eleni Andreopoulou, Michael Naughton, Kevin Kalinsky, Samuel Waxman, Doris Germain

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFulvestrantMedicineInternal medicineMetastatic breast cancerCancerBreast cancerOncologyEstrogen receptorBortezomibClinical endpointProgression-free survivalRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyMultiple myeloma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: Fulvestrant (F) is a selective estrogen receptor downregulator (SERD) with activity in aromatase-inhibitor (AI) resistant estrogen receptor (ER)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In preclinical studies, the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (B) enhances the antineoplastic effects of F, in part by promoting accumulation of large ER-aggregates that lead to cell death (Ishii et al. Clin Cancer Res 2011 17:2292). The objective of this study was to determine if the combination of F+B was more efficacious than F alone in MBC after AI progression. Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER-positive MBC who had progressive disease after prior AI therapy were eligible. They were randomized to F alone (500 mg IM days -15, 1, 15 in cycle 1, and day 1 of each subsequent cycle) or in combination with B (1.6 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 8, 15). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), measured from cycle 1, day 1 of starting F. A sample size of 118 was pre-specified in order to provide sufficient power to detect an improvement in median PFS from 5.4 to 9.0 months, and compare PFS rates after 6 and 12 months (1-sided alpha=0.10, beta=0.10). Patients with progression on F could cross over to the F+B combination. Results: Of 118 patients enrolled, 59 received F alone (arm A), 57 received F+B (arm B), and 2 assigned to arm B never initiated protocol therapy. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between arms with regard to median age (57 vs. 59 years), ECOG performance status (0 and 1, 64% and 36%, respectively), prior chemotherapy for metastasis (25%), or liver metastases (37%), although patients in arm A had longer median interval between diagnosis and metastasis (49 vs. 28 months) and were more likely to present with metastasis (32% vs. 26%). Patients in arm B had more adverse events (all grades), including nausea (63% vs. 29%), diarrhea (47% vs. 8%), sensory neuropathy (46% vs. 29%), and limb edema (37% vs. 19%), although grade 3-4 events were uncommon, and only 11% discontinued B due to toxicity. At 12 months, the PFS proportion in Arm A and Arm B was 13.6% vs. 28.1%, respectively (P=0.03, 1-sided chi-square test) (95% CI for difference [14.5%] = -0.06%, 29.1%). Although median PFS was similar in the two arms (2.69 vs. 2.73 months, respectively), the hazard ratio for Arm B vs. Arm A (referent) was 0.73 (95% CI = 0.49, 1.09, P=0.06, 1-sided log rank test). Both results were significant at the pre-specified 1-sided 0.10 alpha level. Of 27 patients on arm A who crossed over to F+B at progression, 4 (15%) were progression-free for at least 24 weeks and had periods of disease control that were longer than when treated with F alone. Conclusion: Adding bortezomib to fulvestrant in AI-resistant ER-positive MBC enhances its effectiveness by delaying acquired fulvestrant resistance. These results support additional evaluation of proteasome inhibitors in combination with SERDs. Acknowledgement: Supported by contract N01-CM-62204 to the New York Cancer Consortium (P.I. J. Sparano) and grant P30 CA013330 (P.I. D. Goldman) from the National Institutes of Health, and by a grant from Millennium, Inc. Citation Format: Kerin B Adelson, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy, Joseph A Sparano, Paul J Christos, John J Wright, George Raptis, Miguel C Villalona, Cynthia X Ma, Dawn Hershman, Joseph Baar, Paula Klein, Tessa Cigler, G Thomas Budd, Yelena Novik, Antoinette R Tan, Susan Tannenbaum, Anupama Goel, Ellis Levine, Charles L Shapiro, Eleni Andreopoulou, Michael Naughton, Kevin Kalinsky, Samuel Waxman, Doris Germain. Randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant alone or in combination with bortezomib in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors: A New York cancer consortium trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-03.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207