MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PALOMA-2: Primary results from a phase III trial of palbociclib (P) with letrozole (L) compared with letrozole alone in postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2– advanced breast cancer (ABC).

2016· article· en· W2702886506 on OpenAlexaff
Richard S. Finn, Miguel Martín, Hope S. Rugo, Stephen E. Jones, Seock‐Ah Im, Karen A. Gelmon, Nadia Harbeck, Oleg Lipatov, Janice M. Walshe, Stacy Moulder, Eric Gauthier, Dongrui R. Lu, Sophia Randolph, Véronique Dièras, Dennis J. Slamon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalbociclibLetrozoleClinical endpointInternal medicineHazard ratioBreast cancerCancerProgression-free survivalAdverse effectOncologyGynecologyRandomized controlled trialMetastatic breast cancerConfidence intervalTamoxifenOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

507 Background: Hormonal therapy (HT) is the mainstay for patients (pts) with ER+ BC. P, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, blocks growth of ER+/HER2– BC preclinical models. In PALOMA-1, an open-label Ph 2 trial, addition of P to L improved median PFS vs L alone (20.2 months [mo] vs 10.2 mo) in pts with first-line ER+/HER2– ABC with acceptable safety, leading to accelerated FDA approval. PALOMA-2 is a randomized double-blind Ph 3 trial designed to confirm these results. Methods: 666 postmenopausal pts with no prior systemic therapy for ABC were randomized 2:1 to receive P (oral 125 mg/d; 3 wks on/1 wk off) + L (2.5 mg/d continuously) or PLB + L every 28 days until disease progression, consent withdrawal or death. Pts were stratified by disease site, disease-free interval from end of (neo)adjuvant therapy, and prior HT (yes/no). Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed PFS; key secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR=CR + PR + SD ≥24 wks), patient-reported outcomes and safety. Tumor assessments were every 12 wks. 347 events were needed with 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) ≤0.69 in favor of P+L (1-sided α=0.025). Results: By 26 Feb 2016, 331 PFS events occurred. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Median PFS was 24.8 mo (P+L) vs 14.5 mo (PLB+L) (HR=0.58 [0.46–0.72], P<0.000001). ORR was improved with P+L (42.1% vs 34.7%, P=0.031; 55.3% vs 44.4% in pts with measurable disease [P=0.013]). CBR was 84.9% vs 70.3% (P<.0001). Common adverse events (AEs; all grades) with P+L vs PLB+L were neutropenia (79.5% vs 6.3%), fatigue (37.4% vs 27.5%), nausea (35.1% vs 26.1%), arthralgia (33.3% vs 33.8%) and alopecia (32.9% vs 15.8%). Most common severity seen was G3 for neutropenia (56.1%) and G1 for the other AEs. Febrile neutropenia was seen only with P+L (2.5%). Permanent discontinuation due to AEs was 9.7% (P+L) vs 5.9% (PLB+L). OS data are immature; final OS analysis is pending. Conclusion: PALOMA-2 expands and confirms the significant clinical benefit and safety of P+L in ER+/HER2– ABC pts who had not received prior systemic therapy for their advanced disease. Clinical trial information: NCT01740427.

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)0.003
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 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

Citations110
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207