Phase III study of taselisib (GDC-0032) + fulvestrant (FULV) <i>v</i> FULV in patients (pts) with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, <i>PIK3CA</i> -mutant (MUT), locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC): Primary analysis from SANDPIPER.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA1006 Background: Taselisib, a potent, selective PI3K inhibitor, has enhanced activity in PIK3CA-MUT BC cell lines and confirmed partial responses in PIK3CA-MUT BC as a single-agent or with FULV. We assessed taselisib + FULV in pts with ER-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA-MUT locally advanced or MBC. Methods: SANDPIPER (NCT02340221) is a double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, randomized, phase III study. Postmenopausal pts with disease recurrence or progression during or after an aromatase inhibitor were randomized 2:1 to receive taselisib (4 mg oral, qd) or PBO + FULV (500 mg). Stratification factors were: visceral disease, endocrine sensitivity, and geographic region. Pts with PIK3CA-MUT tumors, assessed by central cobas PIK3CA Mutation Test, were randomized separately from non-MUT tumors. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (INV-PFS) in pts with PIK3CA-MUT tumors. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of objective response (DoR), PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR-PFS), and safety. Results: 516 pts were randomized in the PIK3CA-MUT intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Efficacy is shown in the Table. Taselisib + FULV significantly improved INV-PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70) as confirmed by BICR-PFS (HR 0.66). OS is immature. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs; preferred terms) in the taselisib + FULV arm in safety-evaluable pts who received ≥ 1 dose of treatment were diarrhea (12%), hyperglycemia (10%), colitis (3%), and stomatitis (2%). AEs led to more taselisib discontinuations (17% v 2%) and dose reductions (37% v 2%), v PBO. Conclusions: Taselisib + FULV significantly improved INV-PFS, v PBO + FULV, in pts with ER-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA-MUT locally advanced or MBC. The safety profile is largely consistent with previous studies. Clinical trial information: NCT02340221. [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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".