MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety and efficacy of first-line bevacizumab (B) plus chemotherapy (CT) for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC): Analysis of MO19391 according to CT

2009· article· en· W2591022134 on OpenAlexaff
J-Y Pierga, K. I. Pritchard, Christoph Thomssen, H. Cortés-Funes, Laura Biganzoli, Peeter Padrik, Zanete Zvirbule, I. E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTaxaneVinorelbineMetastatic breast cancerInternal medicineDocetaxelCapecitabineBevacizumabClinical endpointPopulationOncologyTrastuzumabSurgeryChemotherapyGastroenterologyBreast cancerCancerClinical trialColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1033 Background: Combination of B with first-line paclitaxel (TP) or docetaxel (TD) significantly improves PFS vs taxane alone in pts with LR/mBC. The open-label, multicenter MO19391 trial further assessed safety and efficacy of first-line B plus a taxane in >2,000 pts in routine clinical practice. Methods: Eligible pts had HER2- negative LR/mBC (or HER2-positive LR/mBC progressing after trastuzumab-containing therapy), ECOG PS 0–2, no prior CT for LR/mBC and no evidence of CNS metastases. Pts received B 10mg/kg q2w or 15mg/kg q3w plus the physician's choice of taxane (TP or TD alone or with another CT) or other non-anthracycline CT according to physician's standard of care. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or refusal. The primary endpoint was safety (NCI CTCAE v3.0); secondary endpoints included TTP, OS, and safety in pts developing CNS metastases. Results: From Sept 2006 to June 2008, 2,027 pts from 37 countries were enrolled. Median follow-up is 7.4 months. CT included a taxane (alone or with CT) in ∼75% of pts. Non-taxane agents included capecitabine (X) and vinorelbine (V). In the overall population, median age was 54 years (range 21–93), 70% were ER and/or PgR positive, and 32% had disease-free interval (DFI) ≤24 months. Baseline characteristics were broadly similar across subgroups. However, the X monotherapy subgroup included fewer pts with >3 metastatic lesions and more with a DFI ≤24 months and/or triple-negative disease compared with other subgroups. Safety and efficacy results grouped by CT are shown below. OS data are still immature (85% of pts alive at this analysis). Conclusions: In this large phase IV study, safety and efficacy of B plus TP or TD was similar to results of E2100 and AVADO. Variations in toxicities were consistent with the known profiles of each CT and no new safety signals for B were observed. The lowest incidences of serious Aes were seen with B plus TP or X. TTP was shorter with X and non-taxane combinations. Such findings are potentially attributable to small pt numbers and differences in baseline characteristics. These results show that B can be safely and effectively combined with a wide range of commonly used CT regimens as first-line therapy for mBC. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.517
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207