MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P1-17-01: Figitumumab Plus Exemestane Versus Exemestane as First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer: A Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Trial.

2011· article· en· W2313872863 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick J. Ryan, Patrick Neven, KL Blackwell, LY Dirix, CH Barrios, W. H. Miller, L. Fein, David Fenton, R. J. Benner, SJ Meech, Luisa Paccagnella, Barbara Sleight, Douglas Yee, PE Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExemestaneMedicineClinical endpointInternal medicineInterim analysisBreast cancerOncologyMetastatic breast cancerRandomized controlled trialClinical trialCancerTamoxifen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Figitumumab (CP-751,871) is a fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody that inhibits IGF-1R. Exemestane profoundly reduces estrogen production and has activity as first-line treatment in postmenopausal metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). Preclinical studies suggest cross-talk between the IGF-1R and estrogen receptor pathways. Combining agents that inhibit these pathways could benefit women with advanced BC. Methods This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase II trial of first-line figitumumab + exemestane (Arm A) vs. exemestane alone (Arm B) in HR+ postmenopausal advanced BC. Eligibility included: age >18 yrs with Stage IIIB or IV disease; baseline ECOG PS ≤2. A high rate of grade [G] 3 and 4 hyperglycemia after figitumumab treatment prompted a protocol amendment in February 2010 requiring patients (pts) to have a baseline HbA1c <5.7%. Patients received exemestane 25 mg po daily ± intravenous figitumumab 20 mg/kg every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with baseline HbA1c <5.7%. Secondary endpoints included clinical benefit rate (CBR) and safety. Results Between 2007 and February 2011, 103 pts were randomized to Arm A and 102 to Arm B. Of these, 37 pts in Arm A and 40 pts in Arm B had baseline HbA1c <5.7%. These data are from an unplanned interim analysis which preceded premature study termination by the Sponsor for clinical development reasons and to expedite availability of data collected to date. Baseline demographics were balanced between arms. PFS, CBR and safety are summarized in Table 1. The majority of AEs were G1/2. In the Arm A overall population, the most common G3/4 events (in decreasing frequency) were hyperglycemia, diabetes mellitus, weight loss, isolated GGT elevation and fatigue. Hyperglycemia was uncommon in Arm B and in all pts with HbA1c <5.7%.[Table 2]. Conclusions The addition of figitumumab to exemestane was tolerable but overall did not improve PFS compared with exemestane alone in pts eligible for this trial. However, a trend toward benefit with figitumumab combined with exemestane in pts without evidence of baseline metabolic syndrome (HbA1c <5.7%) was observed together with improved tolerability; further study with this combination may be warranted. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-17-01.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207