MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P4-22-03: Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy in treatment-naive and previously treated elderly women with HR+, HER2– advanced breast cancer: a pooled analysis from randomized phase 2 and 3 studies

2017· article· en· W2592880966 on OpenAlexaff
HS Rugo, Nicholas C. Turner, RS Finn, AA Joy, Sunil Verma, Nadia Harbeck, Stacy Moulder, Norikazu Masuda, Y-H Im, Kai Zhang, S Kim, Wan Sun, Patrick Schnell, C Huang-Bartlett, DJ Slamon

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalbociclibFulvestrantMedicineLetrozoleInternal medicineBreast cancerMetastatic breast cancerCancerClinical endpointNeutropeniaOncologyRandomized controlled trialPlaceboGastroenterologyGynecologyChemotherapyEstrogen receptorTamoxifenPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: At least 40% of breast cancers are diagnosed in women ≥65 y old and most are hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-). Palbociclib (PAL) is an oral, small-molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6. Randomized studies of PAL combined with endocrine therapy (ET) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with treatment-naive and previously treated advanced breast cancer (ABC). Methods: We evaluated the efficacy of PAL+ET vs ET alone in pts aged ≥65-74 and ≥75 y across multiple pivotal randomized phase 2 and 3 studies. Safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) data (blood samples collected from pts in phase 1/2 [PALOMA-1] and phase 1 studies [NCT00141297 and NCT00420056]) for PAL+ET were pooled and compared across age groups. Pts who had not received treatment for ABC were randomized to receive PAL+letrozole (LET) or LET alone/with placebo (PBO; PALOMA-1, open-label/PALOMA-2, double-blind). Pts who had progressed on prior ET were randomized to receive PAL+fulvestrant (FUL) or PBO+FUL (PALOMA-3, double-blind). The primary endpoint for these studies was investigator-assessed PFS. Safety assessments and blood counts occurred at baseline and every 2 weeks for the first 2 cycles and on day 1 of subsequent cycles. Results: Among 872 pts treated with PAL+ET, 221 (25%) were aged ≥65-74 y and 83 (10%) were ≥75 y (PAL+LET: n=528, 162 and 56, respectively; PAL+FUL: n=347, 59 and 27). Median (range) treatment durations were 440 (1-1615) d, 502 (1-1615) d, and 459 (21-1404) d, respectively. Improvement in efficacy endpoints was seen with PAL+ET vs ET across all age groups (Table 1). Incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar in the overall population (99%, 19%, 3%) and in pts aged ≥65-74 (99%, 25%, 5%) and ≥75 y (100%, 30%, 6%). Incidence of all grades and grade 3/4 neutropenia were also similar across age groups (overall: 67% and 54%; ≥65-74 y: 64% and 51%; ≥75 y: 77% and 60%). PK analysis showed no clinically relevant differences between arithmetic means, medians, and geometric means of the apparent oral clearance across age groups. Conclusions: PAL in combination with ET is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for elderly pts with HR+/HER2- endocrine-sensitive and -resistant ABC. A dose adjustment based on age is not required. Sponsor: Pfizer Table 1. PFS in pts ?65-74 and ?75 y (ITT populations)OverallAged ≥65-74 yAged ≥75 yPALOMA-1/PALOMA-2PAL+LET vs528 vs 303162 vs 9456 vs 26LET/LET+PBO,* nHR (95% CI);0.53 (0.44-0.64);0.66 (0.45-0.97);0.31 (0.16-0.61);1-sided P value<0.00010.01620.0002Median PFS (95% CI), mo24.4 (22.0-26.2) vs27.5 (24.2-NR) vsNR (19.2-NR) vs13.6 (11.1-16.4)21.8 (16.3-31.3)10.9 (4.9-24.9)PALOMA-3PAL+FUL vs347 vs 17459 vs 3727 vs 6FUL+PBO, nHR (95% CI);0.46 (0.36-0.59);0.25 (0.14-0.45);0.87 (0.27-2.79);1-sided P value<0.0001<0.00010.4074Median PFS (95% CI), mo9.5 (9.2-11.0) vs16.1 (12.0-NR) vs13.6 (7.5-NR) vs4.6 (3.5-5.6)3.7 (1.9-5.3)7.4 (1.9-NR)HR=hazard ratio; ITT=intent to treat; NR=not reached. *Does not include 5 pts from phase 1 of PALOMA-1. Citation Format: Rugo HS, Turner NC, Finn RS, Joy AA, Verma S, Harbeck N, Moulder S, Masuda N, Im Y-H, Zhang K, Kim S, Sun W, Schnell P, Huang-Bartlett C, Slamon D. Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy in treatment-naive and previously treated elderly women with HR+, HER2– advanced breast cancer: a pooled analysis from randomized phase 2 and 3 studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-22-03.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.378 · 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.

Study designRandomized 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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