Long-term Pooled Safety Analysis of Palbociclib in Combination With Endocrine Therapy for HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palbociclib administered with endocrine therapy was tolerable when the overall incidence of toxicities was assessed separately for three PALOMA studies. This study analyzed pooled, longer-term PALOMA safety data longitudinally. METHODS: Data were pooled from three randomized phase II and III studies (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00721409, NCT01740427, NCT01942135) of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative advanced breast cancer patients. Front-line patients were randomly assigned to receive letrozole with/without palbociclib (PALOMA-1) or letrozole plus palbociclib/placebo (PALOMA-2). In PALOMA-3, patients with prior endocrine resistance received fulvestrant plus palbociclib/placebo. The cumulative event rates of adverse events (AEs), reporting up to 50 months of treatment, were assessed over time. RESULTS: Patients who received endocrine therapy (n = 1343) were included in this pooled analysis (872 were also treated with palbociclib, and 471 were not). The most common AEs with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy were neutropenia and infections (any grade, 80.6% and 54.7%, respectively), which were higher than in the endocrine monotherapy arm (any grade, 5.3% and 36.9%). The most common hematologic AEs (≥15.0% in the palbociclib arm) were more likely to be reported in the initial months of the study, after which time the cumulative event rate did not substantially increase. With palbociclib plus endocrine therapy, any grade AEs leading to permanent discontinuation over three years occurred in only 8.3% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these long-term safety analyses, there is no evidence of specific cumulative or delayed toxicities with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy, supporting the ongoing investigation of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy in early breast cancer (NCT02513394).
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 | 0.040 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".