MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P1-13-05: Efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim confirmed in reducing severe neutropenia in breast cancer patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the second Phase 3 randomized controlled multinational trial compared to pegfilgrastim (RECOVER trial)

2019· article· en· W2944165579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Schwartzberg, Gajanan Bhat, Klára Mezei, I. Láng, YW Moon, L Senviratne, Santa P. Chawla, Patrick Cobb, Zihua Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPegfilgrastimMedicineNeutropeniaDocetaxelBreast cancerInternal medicineFebrile neutropeniaClinical endpointCyclophosphamideOncologyPhases of clinical researchChemotherapyCancerSurgeryClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Eflapegrastim is a novel investigational biologic comprised of recombinant human G-CSF covalently linked to the human immunoglobulin G4FC fragment using proprietary LAPSCOVERY™ technology with potentially unique distribution to areas rich in FcRn receptors. RECOVER is the second Phase 3 study to investigate the non-inferiority (NI) of eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. The first Phase 3 study, ADVANCE, has demonstrated the non-inferiority of eflapegrastim comparing to pegfilgrastim in the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) and was previously published at ASCO 2018 meeting. TrialDesign: Patients with Stage I to Stage IIIA breast cancer from centers in the USA, Canada, Poland, Hungary, South Korea and India were treated on Day 1 of each of four 21-day cycles with adjuvant or neo-adjuvant TC. On Day 2 of each cycle, patients received a single subcutaneous dose of either eflapegrastim 13.2 mg/0.6 mL (equivalent to 3.6 mg G-CSF) or pegfilgrastim (6 mg) in a 1:1 ratio. Patients had CBCs drawn on Day 1 prior to chemotherapy and Days 4-15 daily or until recovery of neutropenia in Cycle 1. CBC was also collected on Days 1, 4, 7, 10 and 15 in Cycles 2-4. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of eflapegrastim comparing to pegfilgrastim as measured by the mean DSN in Cycle 1 with NI margin of <0.62 day. Results: In a total of 237 intent-to-treat patients (randomized to 118 eflapegrastim; 119 pegfilgrastim), median age was 59 years (range 29 to 88 years); mean (SD) DSN was 0.31 (0.688) days for eflapegrastim and 0.39 (0.949) days for pegfilgrastim, demonstrating the non-inferiority (95% CI of ΔDSN: [-0.292, 0.129]; p<0.0001). Non-inferiority of eflapegrastim for DSN was maintained across all 4 cycles. There were no statistically significant differences in secondary endpoints: time to ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir and incidence of FN at Cycle 1. The common Grade 3/4 adverse events observed in≥5%of patients were similar across both arms and were mainly hematologic including neutropenia, lymphopenia, anemia and leukopenia. Grade 3/4 bone pain and febrile neutropenia rates were similar across both arms and were less than 5%. Conclusions: Eflapegrastim, a novel long acting G-CSF demonstrated non-inferiority to pegfilgrastim in the reduction of DSN in breast cancer patients treated with TC and has validated the results from the first Phase 3 ADVANCE study. Eflapegrastim was safe and well-tolerated with a similar safety profile to pegfilgrastim. Citation Format: Schwartzberg L, Bhat G, Mezei K, Lang I, Moon YW, Senviratne L, Chawla S, Cobb P, Yang Z. Efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim confirmed in reducing severe neutropenia in breast cancer patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the second Phase 3 randomized controlled multinational trial compared to pegfilgrastim (RECOVER trial) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-05.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207