Phase II clinical study of eribulin monotherapy in Japanese patients with metastatic breast cancer who had well-defined taxane resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of eribulin monotherapy has been obtained by a prospective clinical study in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had well-defined taxane resistance. The present Phase II, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study aimed to obtain the evidence. Japanese female patients, aged 33-74 years who had the metastasis of taxane-resistant and histopathologically confirmed breast cancer, received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m(2) (equivalent to eribulin 1.23 mg/m(2) [expressed as free base]) as a 2- to 5-min intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate (CBR) [complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and long-term stable disease (LSD) ≥24 weeks]. A total of 51 patients underwent chemotherapy cycles (median 4; range 1-42 cycles). The CBR was 39.2 % (CR 2.0 %; PR 23.5 %; and LSD 13.7 %), and the rate of progressive disease was 49.0 %. The median progression-free survival and the median overall survival were 3.6 months [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.6-4.6 months] and 11.7 months (95 % CI 9.2-14.2 months), respectively. Grade 3 or greater adverse events were leukopenia (23.5 %), neutropenia (35.3 %), anemia (5.9 %), and febrile neutropenia (7.8 %). The incidences of grade 3 and 4 peripheral sensory neuropathy were 2.0 and 0 %, respectively. Eribulin showed a clinically manageable tolerability profile by dose adjustments or symptomatic treatment. Eribulin was effective and well tolerated in heavily pretreated patients with MBC who had well-defined taxane resistance, thus providing a potential therapeutic option in the clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".