MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PALOMA3: A double-blind, phase III trial of fulvestrant with or without palbociclib in pre- and post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that progressed on prior endocrine therapy.

2015· article· en· W2296942186 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas C. Turner, Jungsil Ro, Fabrice André, Sherene Loi, Sunil Verma, Hiroji Iwata, Nadia Harbeck, Sibylle Loibl, Cynthia Huang Bartlett, Ke Zhang, C. Giorgetti, Sophia Randolph, María Koehler, Massimo Cristofanilli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFulvestrantPalbociclibMedicineMetastatic breast cancerInternal medicineGoserelinClinical endpointOncologyBreast cancerInterim analysisTolerabilityCancerGynecologyTamoxifenClinical trialAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA502 Background: The growth of hormone receptor (HR) positive breast cancer (BC) is dependent on the cyclin dependent kinases CDK4/6, that promote G1-S phase cell cycle progression. Resistance to endocrine treatment remains a major clinical problem for patients with hormone receptor positive breast cancer. The PALOMA3 study assessed the efficacy of palbociclib and fulvestrant in endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancer. Methods: In this double-blind phase 3 study women with HR positive/HER2 negative advanced metastatic BC whose cancer had relapsed or progressed on prior endocrine therapy, were randomized 2:1 to palbociclib (Palbo, 125 mg/d orally for 3 wk followed by 1 wk off) and fulvestrant (F, 500 mg per standard of care) or placebo (PLB) and F. Pre- and peri-menopausal women also received goserelin. One previous line of chemotherapy for metastatic disease was permitted. The primary endpoint was investigator assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response assessment, patient-reported outcomes, and safety and tolerability. A pre-planned interim analysis was performed after 195 PFS events by an independent data monitoring committee. Results: 521 pts were randomized, 347 to receive Palbo+F and 174 to PLB+F. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. The median age was 57 and 56 years, 79% were post-menopausal, 60% had visceral disease, and 79% were sensitive to prior endocrine therapy. Prior therapy included chemotherapy for advanced disease in 33% of pts. At the time of the interim analysis the study met the primary endpoint, median PFS was 9.2 months for Palbo+F and 3.8 months for PLB+F (HR 0.422, 95% CI 0.318 to 0.560, P<0.000001). Consistent benefit from Palbo was seen in pre- and post-menopausal women. The most common adverse effects Palbo+F versus PLB+F were neutropenia (78.8% vs. 3.5%), leucopenia (45.5% vs. 4.1%), and fatigue (38.0% vs. 26.7%). Febrile neutropenia was reported in 0.6% pts on Palbo+F and 0.6% pts on PLB+F. The discontinuation rate due to adverse events was 2.0% on Palbo and 1.7% on PLB. Conclusions: Palbociclib combined with fulvestrant improved progression free survival in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer that had progressed on prior endocrine therapy, and can be considered as a treatment option for these patients. Clinical trial information: NCT01942135.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.344 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207