A Phase II Study (FINDER 2) Comparing Three Dosing Regimens of Fulvestrant in Postmenopausal Women with Estrogen Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The Faslodex Investigation of Dose evaluation in Estrogen Receptor-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (FINDER) 2 study investigated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of 3 fulvestrant dosing regimens in postmenopausal women with ER+ advanced breast cancer, recurring/progressing after prior endocrine therapy.Objectives: Primary: to evaluate the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary included assessment of: time to progression (TTP), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR), tolerability, and PK parameters.Methods: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, Phase II study, evaluated patients (pts) randomized 1:1:1 to different doses of fulvestrant: 250 mg (approved dose [AD]; given on Days 0, 28 and every 28 days thereafter), 250 mg plus loading dose (LD; 500 mg on Day 0, then 250 mg on Days 14, 28 and every 28 days thereafter), and 500 mg (high dose [HD]; Days 0, 14 and 28 and every 28 days thereafter). Treatment continued until disease progression, or until any other criterion for discontinuation was met.Results: In total, 144 pts were randomized from 34 centers in 8 countries and 143 received treatment: fulvestrant AD (n=47); LD (n=50); HD (n=46). ORRs were: 8.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4-20.4%), 5.9% (1.2-16.2%), and 15.2% (6.3-28.9%) in the AD, LD, and HD arms, respectively. CBRs were: 31.9% (95% CI 19.1-47.1%), 47.1% (32.9-61.5%), and 47.8% (32.9-63.1%) for the AD, LD, and HD arms, respectively. Median TTP was numerically longer for the HD (6.0 months) and LD (6.1 months) arms vs the AD arm (3.1 months). The low number of responders in all treatment arms prevented DOR assessment. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar in all groups (76.6% AD, 72.0% LD, 69.6% HD); few pts experienced serious AEs (4 pts AD, 9 LD, 4 HD) with no clustering of event type. AEs with an incidence of ≥10% (in any arm) were back pain, arthralgia, fatigue, injection-site pain, nausea, dyspnea, cough, and hot flash. Concentrations in the AD arm approached steady state in the 3rd month of dosing and within the 1st month for LD and HD. Exposure (AUC, Cmin and Cmax) appeared to be linear across the dose range studied and, for the 250mg arms, similar to that previously reported in Western populations (Studies 9238IL/0020 & 0021).Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in efficacy could be proven between AD, LD and HD given the widely overlapping CIs for median TTP. The tolerability profile was similar across the three dosing regimens. Steady-state concentrations were achieved earlier with LD and HD. A parallel study in Japanese pts will be used for comparisons of fulvestrant efficacy and tolerability in Japanese and non-Japanese pts. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 4095.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".