MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898595037 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy272.322

Clinical outcomes in patients (pts) with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer (ABC) with objective response (OR) or without objective response (non-OR) in PALOMA-2

2018· article· en· W2898595037 on OpenAlexaff
Hope S. Rugo, RS Finn, Karen A. Gelmon, Anil A. Joy, Oleg Lipatov, Nadia Harbeck, Aurelio Castrellon, Hirofumi Mukai, J.M. Walshe, A. Mori, Eric Gauthier, Dongrui R. Lu, Eustratios Bananis, Miguel Martín, Véronique Dièras

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineLetrozoleBreast cancerPalbociclibEstrogen receptorCancerPhases of clinical researchMetastatic breast cancerProgression-free survivalGastroenterologyOncologyClinical trialGynecologyOverall survivalTamoxifen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the phase 3 PALOMA-2 trial, palbociclib (PAL) + letrozole (LET) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (PBO) + LET in pts with ER+/HER2– ABC. We investigated clinical outcomes of pts who achieved a confirmed OR compared with those who did not (data cutoff date: 31 May 2017). Methods: Postmenopausal pts untreated for ER+/HER2- ABC were randomized 2:1 to PAL (125 mg/d [Schedule 3/1]) + LET (2.5 mg/d) or PBO+LET. Median PFS (mPFS), median duration of OR (mDOR), baseline characteristics, safety, and PAL exposure were compared in pts with or without OR by treatment arm. Results: The PAL+LET and PBO+LET groups comprised 444 and 222 pts, respectively; 338 and 171 pts had measurable disease (MD) at baseline. Baseline characteristics were similar in OR and non-OR pts. OR was achieved by 194 (overall, 44%; MD, 57%) and 77 (35%; 45%) pts in the PAL and PBO arms, respectively. Of the pts who achieved OR in the PAL arm, 49% occurred within the first 3 months, 75% within 6 months, and 90% within 1 year. In the PAL arm, more OR than non-OR pts had visceral disease (62% vs 38%), de novo metastatic disease (50% vs 28%), and no prior hormonal therapy (55% vs 35%); fewer OR than non-OR pts had a disease-free interval of ≤ 12 months (14% vs 28%). mPFS was significantly prolonged with PAL+LET vs PBO+LET in both OR and non-OR pts (overall and with MD; Table); in OR pts, mDOR was longer with PAL+LET vs PBO+LET. Safety profiles were similar and independent of response; neutropenia was the most common all-grade AE in the PAL arm (OR, 86%; non-OR, 78%) and rates of PAL dose reduction due to AEs were similar (41%; 38%). Conclusions: PAL+LET provided significant clinical benefit vs PBO+LET in both OR and non-OR pts; the safety profile was similar to previously reported results in the overall population. PAL is an effective treatment regardless of OR. Pfizer (NCT01740427)Table: 332PClinical benefit in patients with or without confirmedOR in PALOMA-2ORNon-ORPAL+LETPBO+LETPAL+LETPBO+LETAll pts, n19477250145mPFS (95% CI), mo37.227.416.58.2(28.1–NE)(22.0–31.1)(12.8–22.2)(5.6–11.0)HR (95% CI)0.65 (0.46–0.92)0.55 (0.43–0.70)mDOR (95% CI), mo27.720.9––(24.7–36.1)(16.5–27.6)Pts with MD, n1947614495mPFS (95% CI), mo37.227.410.95.6(28.1–NE)(22.2–31.1)(8.2–11.2)(5.3–8.3)HR (95% CI)0.66 (0.47–0.94)0.72 (0.54–0.97)HR=hazard ratio; NE=not estimable. Open table in a new tab HR=hazard ratio; NE=not estimable. Clinical trial identification: NCT01740427. Editorial acknowledgement: Editorial support was provided by Jennifer Fetting, PhD, and Kevin O’Regan, PhD, of Complete Healthcare Communications, LLC (West Chester, PA), a CHC Group company, and funded by Pfizer Inc. Legal entity responsible for the study: Pfizer Inc. Funding: Pfizer Inc. Disclosure: H.S. Rugo: Research funding: Plexxikon, Macrogenics, OBI Pharma, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Merck; Travel support: Mylan, Puma Biotechnology Merck, Pfizer, Amgen. R.S. Finn: Honoraria: Bayer, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Eisai; Consulting or advisory role: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck; Research funding: Pfizer. K.A. Gelmon: Consulting or advisory role: Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Merck. A.A. Joy: Consulting or advisory role: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie. N. Harbeck: Honoraria: Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer. A. Castrellon: Consulting or advisory role: Myriad, Biotheranostics; Research funding: Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Novartis, Cascadian Therapeutics. H. Mukai: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Novartis Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical; Research funds: Chugai Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer Japan, Sanofi. J.M. Walshe: Honoraria: Genomic Health, Roche. A. Mori, E. Gauthier, D.R. Lu, E. Bananis: Employee and shareholder: Pfizer M. Martín: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, PharmaMar, Celgene, Eli Lilly; Research funds: Roche, Novartis. V. Dieras: Consulting and advisory role: Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis Pharma KK, Roche-Peru; Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Novartis Pharma KK, Roche-Peru. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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