MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract S1-4: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2 Study of AMG 479 With Exemestane (E) or Fulvestrant (F) in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone-Receptor Positive (HR+) Metastatic (M) or Locally Advanced (LA) Breast Cancer (BC)

2010· article· en· W2031165260 on OpenAlexaff
PA Kaufman, J-M Ferrero, Hugues Bourgeois, Hagen F. Kennecke, R. de Boer, William Jacot, Jesse McGreivy, Samuel Suzuki, Elwyn Loh, J.F.R. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFulvestrantPlaceboInternal medicineExemestaneMetastatic breast cancerClinical endpointBreast cancerOncologyCancerEstrogen receptorClinical trialTamoxifenPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: AMG 479 is an investigational, fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R) that blocks binding of IGF-1 and IGF-2. Preclinical data suggest that inhibition of estrogen receptor (ER) and IGF1R signaling in ER+ BC can result in greater suppression of cell proliferation than achieved by blocking either pathway alone. Inhibition of the IGF1R-signaling pathway might enhance sensitivity of 2nd-line hormonal therapy in BC patients (pts). We conducted a 2-arm, double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study evaluating the addition of AMG 479 to either E or F in M or LA BC pts who had progressed on prior endocrine therapy. Patients: Eligibility included: HR+ incurable M or LA BC; progression while receiving prior endocrine therapy for MBC or LA or within 12 months of completing adjuvant hormonal therapy; post menopausal; adequate glycemic control. HER2+ tumor status allowed. Study Design: Pts were randomly allocated 2:1 to either AMG 479 or placebo; E or F was per investigator. Pts received AMG 479 12 mg/kg IV or placebo Q2W + either E 25 mg QD PO or F 500 mg IM on day 1, 250 mg IM day 15 and 29, and Q4W thereafter. Eligible pts who progressed on the placebo arm could proceed on open-label AMG 479. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal, or death. MRI or CT scans were done every 8 weeks and bone scans every 12 weeks (for pts with bone involvement at screening). Endpoints: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), as measured by modified RECIST v1.0 per investigator review. Results: 156 pts were randomized between March 2008 and July 2009. Median age, 61 (range 36-88) years; M vs LA BC, 154 (99%) vs 2 (1%). 127 pts (81%) had discontinued treatment as of May 2010. See table for efficacy. For pts receiving AMG 479 or placebo, the incidence of grade ≥3 AE was 42% and 24% and for serious AE, 25% and 18%. The most common grade ≥3 AEs (AMG 479/placebo) were: hyperglycemia (6%/0%), neutropenia (6%/2%), thrombocytopenia (4%/0%), asthenia (4%/2%), and increased AST (4%/0%). There were 5 grade 5 AEs; none were treatment related: 4 in the AMG 479 arm (2 PD, 1 sub occlusive syndrome [progression], and 1 pulmonary embolism [post-operative setting]) and 1 in the placebo arm (alteration of general status). 8% of pts in the AMG 479 arm vs 12% in the placebo arm had AEs that led to discontinuation of any study treatment. Conclusion: The combination of AMG 479 + E or F did not result in an improvement in PFS in this population of pts with HR+ M or LA BC. There were no unanticipated safety findings. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S1-4.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207