Abstract P3-06-34: Plasma (p) VEGF-A and VEGFR-2 biomarker (BM) results from the BEATRICE phase III trial of bevacizumab (BEV) in triple-negative early breast cancer (BC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Several candidate BMs have been explored in randomized trials of BEV across tumor types with the aim of identifying patients (pts) deriving the most substantial benefit from BEV therapy. In phase III trials, baseline pVEGF-A and pVEGFR-2 showed potential predictive value in metastatic BC (AVADO, AVEREL), pancreatic cancer (AViTA), and gastric cancer (AVAGAST; VEGF-A only). The randomized phase III BEATRICE trial, evaluating the addition of BEV to adjuvant chemotherapy in pts with triple-negative early BC, includes a comprehensive program to identify potential BMs predicting efficacy and toxicity of BEV therapy. We report results for baseline pVEGF-A and pVEGFR-2. Methods: After selection of chemotherapy (anthracycline and/or taxane), pts with T1a-T3 operable BC were randomized 1:1 to receive ≥4 cycles of chemotherapy either alone or with 1 year of BEV 5 mg/kg/wk equivalent. The primary endpoint is invasive disease-free survival (IDFS). pEDTA samples were collected from consenting pts at baseline (before treatment, after surgery), during study treatment, and at relapse. Pts were dichotomized using the median baseline concentration of each marker as the cut-off between high and low cohorts; further exploratory analyses were also performed by quartile. Results: Between Dec 2007 and Mar 2010, 2591 pts were enrolled. Of these, 1273 (49%) consented to the BM study and 1178 (45%) were included in the BM-evaluable population (BEP). Overall, the BEP was representative of the ITT population except for lower proportions of Asian pts (12% vs 24%). IDFS was similar in the BEP and ITT populations. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms in the BEP. Baseline pVEGF-A showed neither prognostic nor predictive value using the median as the cut-off, although with a third quartile (Q3) cut-off there was a more pronounced but non-significant differentiation between treatments (HR 0.92 [low] vs 0.64 [high]). High baseline pVEGFR-2 showed potential predictive value for BEV efficacy (HR 1.24 [low] vs 0.61 [high]; p=0.029). Conclusions: Unlike trials in metastatic BC (AVADO, AVEREL), in the adjuvant setting, baseline pVEGF-A concentration did not show predictive value for BEV efficacy with a median cut-off. However, analyses using the Q3 cut-off suggest a trend toward predictive value. High baseline pVEGFR-2 was associated with greater BEV treatment effect, consistent with previous results in AVADO and AVEREL. The impact of differing biology in the adjuvant setting, lower median VEGF-A concentration than in the metastatic setting (77.0 vs 125.0–129.1 pg/mL), and the possible influence of surgery immediately before treatment require further investigation. Additional exploratory analyses are ongoing to provide better understanding of the BEATRICE dataset and the complex biology of angiogenesis, including additional markers, changes over time, and combination signatures. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-34.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".