Palbociclib has no clinically relevant effect on the QTc interval in patients with advanced breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the potential effects of palbociclib in combination with letrozole on QTc. PALOMA-2, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, compared palbociclib plus letrozole with placebo plus letrozole in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. The study included a QTc evaluation substudy carried out as a definitive QT interval prolongation assessment for palbociclib. Time-matched triplicate ECGs were performed at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 h at baseline (Day 0) and on Cycle 1 Day 14. Additional ECGs were collected from all patients for safety monitoring. The QT interval was corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's correction (QTcF), Bazett's correction (QTcB), and a study-specific correction factor (QTcS). In total, 666 patients were randomized 2 : 1 to palbociclib plus letrozole or placebo plus letrozole. Of these, 125 patients were enrolled in the QTc evaluation substudy. No patients in the palbociclib plus letrozole arm of the substudy (N=77) had a maximum postbaseline QTcS or QTcF value of ≥ 480 ms, or a maximum increase from clock time-matched baseline for QTcS or QTcF values of ≥ 60 ms. The upper bounds of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean change from time-matched baseline for QTcS, QTcF, and QTcB at all time points and at steady-state Cmax following repeated administration of 125 mg palbociclib were less than 10 ms. Palbociclib, when administered with letrozole at the recommended therapeutic dosing regimen, did not prolong the QT interval to a clinically relevant extent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".