MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P4-13-14: Time on treatment of everolimus, fulvestrant, and capecitabine for the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer: A retrospective claims study in the US

2016· article· en· W2399066128 on OpenAlexaff
N Li, Yanni Hao, Andrew Kageleiry, Miranda Peeples, Anna Fang, Valerie Koo, A. Guérin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsNovartis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapecitabineDiscontinuationFulvestrantEverolimusInternal medicineMetastatic breast cancerRegimenOncologyAromatase inhibitorCancerHazard ratioTolerabilityBreast cancerAnastrozoleAromataseAdverse effectTamoxifenConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Treatment guidelines for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) recommend extending the time on treatment (TOT) of endocrine therapy (ET) prior to the initiation of chemotherapy (CT) to avoid its serious side effects and preserve patients' quality of life. Everolimus-based therapy (EVE), fulvestrant monotherapy (FUL mono), and capecitabine monotherapy (CAP mono) are among the latest ET and CT agents approved for the treatment of HR+/HER2- mBC in the US. This retrospective claims analysis compared TOT among HR+/HER2- mBC patients who received EVE versus those who received FUL mono or CAP mono respectively. Methods: Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC who initiated ≥ 1 new line of therapy for mBC between 7/20/2012 (the approval date of EVE, the latest of all three therapies) and 3/31/2014 (which allowed for ≥ 3 months of potential follow-up) after a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor were identified from the MarketScan and PharMetrics databases (2002Q1-2014Q2) using an algorithm adapted from the literature. Treatment discontinuation was defined as a treatment gap of ≥ 60 days. Patients' lines of therapies were classified into mutually-exclusive regimen groups (i.e., EVE, FUL mono, and CAP mono) and followed until discontinuation of the line of therapy, end of insurance eligibility, or data cut-off (06/30/2014). Patients who did not discontinue their treatment were censored at the end of follow-up. TOT was compared between EVE versus FUL mono and versus CAP mono using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) analyses with log-rank tests and multivariable Cox models adjusting for the line of therapy and differences in patient characteristics, including age, insurance type, de novo vs non-de-novo mBC, prior use of CT for mBC, sites of metastases (e.g., bone, brain, and visceral), and Charlson comorbidity index. Results: Across the first four lines of therapies for mBC, a total of 940 EVE, 953 FUL mono, and 721 CAP mono regimens were included. Based on the different lines of therapies, the K-M estimators of median TOT ranged from 5.5 to 7.2 months for EVE, 4.9 to 8.4 months for FUL mono, and 3.5 to 6.0 months for CAP mono. Table 1. Comparison of TOT between EVE, FUL mono, and CAP mono by line of therapy Median TOT (months) EVEFUL monoCAP monoLine 16.28.43.5*Line 26.25.64.6*Line 37.25.3*6.0*Line 45.54.95.1**indicates p-value <0.05 for pairwise log-rank tests in comparison with EVE. Pooling all lines of therapies, EVE was associated with significantly longer TOT compared to FUL mono (multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.99) or CAP mono (multivariable-adjusted HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.64-0.83). Similar results were observed in each line of therapy. Conclusions: This real-world US claims study of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC showed that patients receiving EVE experienced significantly longer TOT than those receiving FUL mono or CAP mono, suggesting a comparative advantage of EVE in extending the duration of ET. Citation Format: Li N, Hao Y, Kageleiry A, Peeples M, Fang A, Koo V, Guérin A. Time on treatment of everolimus, fulvestrant, and capecitabine for the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer: A retrospective claims study in the US. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-13-14.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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