Neratinib + capecitabine versus lapatinib + capecitabine in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with ≥ 2 HER2-directed regimens: Findings from the multinational, randomized, phase III NALA trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1002 Background: NALA (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808573) is a multinational, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of neratinib (an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI]) + capecitabine (N+C) vs lapatinib (a reversible dual TKI) + capecitabine (L+C) in patients with stage IV HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had received ≥2 prior HER2-directed regimens for MBC. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to N (240 mg qd po) + C (750 mg/m2 bid po) or L (1250 mg qd po) + C (1000 mg/m2 bid po). Co-primary endpoints were centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS; objective response rate (ORR); duration of response (DoR); clinical benefit rate (CBR); time to intervention for symptomatic metastatic central nervous system (CNS) disease; safety; and patient-reported health outcomes. Results: 621 patients were randomized (307 to N+C; 314 to L+C). The risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 24% with N+C vs L+C (HR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.63–0.93; p = 0.006); 6- and 12-month PFS rates were 47.2% vs 37.8% and 28.8% vs 14.8% for N+C vs L+C, respectively. OS rates at 6 and 12 months were 90.2% vs 87.5% and 72.5% vs 66.7% for N+C vs L+C, respectively (HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.72–1.07; p = 0.2086). ORR in patients with measurable disease at screening was improved with N+C vs L+C (32.8% vs 26.7%; p = 0.1201), as was CBR (44.5% vs 35.6%; p = 0.0328) and DoR (HR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.33–0.74; p = 0.0004). Time to intervention for symptomatic CNS disease (overall cumulative incidence 22.8% vs 29.2%; p = 0.043) was delayed with N+C vs L+C. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar between arms, but there was a higher rate of grade 3 diarrhea with N+C vs L+C (24.4% vs 12.5%). TEAEs leading to neratinib/lapatinib discontinuation were lower with neratinib (10.9%) than with lapatinib (14.5%). Conclusions: N+C significantly improved PFS with a trend towards improved OS vs L+C. N+C also resulted in a delayed time to intervention for symptomatic CNS disease. Tolerability was similar between the two arms, with no new safety signals observed. Clinical trial information: NCT01808573.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".