Tolerability and efficacy of first-line bevacizumab (B) plus chemotherapy (CT) in elderly patients with advanced breast cancer (aBC): Subpopulation analysis of the MO19391 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1032 Background: Limited data exist on the efficacy and safety of biological agents in elderly patients with aBC. This is essentially due to the lack of studies specifically targeting the older population and to strict inclusion criteria in clinical trials. B significantly improved the efficacy of 1st-line taxane therapy in two large, randomized phase III trials, E2100 and AVADO. Methods: In study MO19391, 1st-line B 10mg/kg q2w or 15mg/kg q3w + CT (primarily but not exclusively taxane monotherapy) was investigated in a broader, large aBC patient population, with the aim of understanding safety and efficacy in patients seen in routine clinical practice, including elderly patients. Results: A total of 2,027 patients were enrolled. Median age was 54 years (range 21–93); 359 patients (17.7%) were aged ≥65 years and 169 (8.3%) were ≥70 years. Baseline characteristics and safety and efficacy results according to age are shown below (Table). Conclusions: Treatment with B is feasible in elderly patients. Hypertension was the only grade 3 B-related side effect reported more frequently in the older than in the younger cohort. Efficacy was similar in the two subgroups. These results suggest that the combination of B with 1st-line CT shows a similar therapeutic index regardless of age. Data on compliance according to the different CT regimens, the impact of comorbidities on safety, and analyses in the subgroup of patients ≥70 years will be presented. [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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".