Phase II Study of Taselisib (GDC-0032) in Combination with Fulvestrant in Patients with HER2-Negative, Hormone Receptor–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: This single-arm, open-label phase II study evaluated the safety and efficacy of taselisib (GDC-0032) plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients received 6-mg oral taselisib capsules daily plus intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumor tissue (if available) was centrally evaluated for PIK3CA mutations. Adverse events (AE) were recorded using NCI-CTCAE v4.0. Tumor response was investigator-determined using RECIST v1.1. Results: Median treatment duration was 4.6 (range: 0.9–40.5) months. All patients experienced ≥1 AE, 30 (50.0%) had grade ≥3 AEs, and 19 (31.7%) experienced 35 serious AEs. Forty-seven of 60 patients had evaluable tissue for central PIK3CA mutation testing [20 had mutations, 27 had no mutation detected (MND)]. In patients with baseline measurable disease, clinical activity was observed in tumors with PIK3CA mutations [best confirmed response rate: 38.5% (5/13; 95% CI, 13.9–68.4); clinical benefit rate (CBR): 38.5% (5/13; 95% CI, 13.9–68.4)], PIK3CA-MND [best confirmed response rate: 14.3% (3/21; 95% CI, 3.0–36.3); CBR: 23.8% (5/21; 95% CI, 8.2–47.2)], and unknown PIK3CA mutation status [best confirmed response rate: 20.0% (2/10; 95% CI, 2.5–55.6); CBR: 30.0% (3/10; 95% CI, 6.7–65.2)]. Conclusions: Taselisib plus fulvestrant had clinical activity irrespective of PIK3CA mutation status, with numerically higher objective response rate and CBR in patients with PIK3CA-mutated (vs. -MND) locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative, HR-positive breast cancer. No new safety signals were reported. A confirmatory phase III trial is ongoing. Clin Cancer Res; 24(18); 4380–7. ©2018 AACR.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".