MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P5-19-08: Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Data from Capecitabine Monotherapy Clinical Trials in Anthracycline-/Taxane-Pretreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer (LA/MBC).

2011· article· en· W2325653118 on OpenAlexaff
JL Blum, CH Barrios, Nancy Feldman, S Verma, E.F. McKenna, S Lee, Nana Scotto, Julie R. Gralow

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapecitabineInternal medicineTaxaneMetastatic breast cancerRefractory (planetary science)Clinical trialAnthracyclineRegimenOncologyBreast cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Capecitabine (C) has shown efficacy as monotherapy in anthracycline (A)-/taxane (T)-pretreated LA/MBC in phase II/III trials. Since its approval, the treatment landscape in MBC has evolved, and C has served as the combination partner and/or active comparator in trials of novel agents in pretreated MBC. This pooled analysis of clinical trial data, spanning a 12-yr period, assessed the efficacy and safety of C across treatment lines and the impact of disease characteristics on clinical outcomes with C. Methods: Individual patient (pt) data were pooled from 7 clinical trials conducted by Roche/GNE from Feb 1996-Jun 2008 where C monotherapy was the test/control regimen for pts with LA/MBC with/without prior A/T therapy. Analyses were performed on an ITT basis. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses assessed the impact of pt/disease characteristics and prior therapy on outcomes. Results: Data from 805 pts enrolled to intermittent C monotherapy were analyzed: 268 in the 1st-line metastatic setting; 537 in the ≥2nd-line metastatic setting (table). Median age: 55 yrs (range 23–90). Most pts were Caucasian (81%) with ECOG PS of 0 (55%). Baseline demographics were balanced across treatment lines. Data on A/T treatment history were available for 719 pts; 557 pts received prior A/T therapy, 176 were A-refractory, 234 T-refractory and 154 A- and T-refractory. Pooled overall response rate (ORR) was 21.0% (1.7% complete; 19.3% partial). ORR was 25.0% and 19.0% for pts treated in the 1st- and ≥2nd-line settings (OR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.5−1.0; p=0.0486). Median PFS was 126.9 days (95% CI: 119–132) in the pooled analysis, and significantly longer in pts receiving 1st- vs ≥2nd-line C: 150.0 vs 112.0 days (HR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.23−1.71; p<0.0001). Pooled median OS was 482.1 days (95% CI: 438–516). Significantly longer median OS was seen in pts receiving 1st- vs ≥2nd-line C: 666.0 vs 396.0 days (HR 1.98, 95% CI: 1.62−2.41; p<0.0001). 62 pts (8%) withdrew due to C-related AEs, which were severe in 4% of pts and life threatening in 2%. AEs of special interest occurred in 489 pts (63%); these were severe in 24% of pts and life threatening in 2%. Gastrointestinal disorders were most frequent (417 pts [53%]), and were severe or life threatening in 13% and 1% of pts. Conclusions: This pooled analysis of pt data (n=805) revealed significantly longer ORR/survival in pts receiving 1st- vs ≥2nd-line C for A-/T-pretreated MBC. Univariate and multivariate analyses are ongoing; results will be presented. Safety data were in-line with findings from phase III trials of C in MBC. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-19-08.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.493
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.095 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207