MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031131661 · doi:10.1007/s12325-013-0060-1

Everolimus Plus Exemestane in Postmenopausal Patients with HR+ Breast Cancer: BOLERO-2 Final Progression-Free Survival Analysis

2013· article· en· W2031131661 on OpenAlexaff
Denise A. Yardley, Shinzaburo Noguchi, Kathleen I. Pritchard, Howard A. Burris, José Baselga, Michael Gnant, Gabriel N. Hortobágyi, Mario Campone, Barbara Pistilli, Martine Piccart, Bohuslav Melichar, Katarína Petráková, Francis P. Arena, Frans Erdkamp, Wael A. Harb, Wentao Feng, Ayelet Cahana, Tetiana Taran, David Lebwohl, Hope S. Rugo

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Therapy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteSanofiGenentechAstraZenecaAmgenPfizerAllerganBristol-Myers SquibbGenomic HealthGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsExemestaneEverolimusMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineAromatase inhibitorBreast cancerOncologyClinical endpointPlaceboPopulationAdverse effectProgression-free survivalConfidence intervalCancerClinical trialAromataseChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatments for hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer (BC) following relapse/progression on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) therapy are needed. Initial Breast Cancer Trials of OraL EveROlimus-2 (BOLERO-2) trial data demonstrated that everolimus and exemestane significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus exemestane alone in this patient population. METHODS: BOLERO-2 is a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, international trial comparing everolimus (10 mg/day) plus exemestane (25 mg/day) versus placebo plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR(+) advanced BC with recurrence/progression during or after NSAIs. The primary endpoint was PFS by local investigator review, and was confirmed by independent central radiology review. Overall survival, response rate, and clinical benefit rate were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Final study results with median 18-month follow-up show that median PFS remained significantly longer with everolimus plus exemestane versus placebo plus exemestane [investigator review: 7.8 versus 3.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38-0.54); log-rank P < 0.0001; central review: 11.0 versus 4.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.31-0.48); log-rank P < 0.0001] in the overall population and in all prospectively defined subgroups, including patients with visceral metastases, [corrected] and irrespective of age. The incidence and severity of adverse events were consistent with those reported at the interim analysis and in other everolimus trials. CONCLUSION: The addition of everolimus to exemestane markedly prolonged PFS in patients with HR(+) advanced BC with disease recurrence/progression following prior NSAIs. These results further support the use of everolimus plus exemestane in this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00863655.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized 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

Citations520
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in TherapySame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207