MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety of everolimus for women over 65 years of age with advanced breast cancer (BC): 12.5-mo follow-up of BOLERO-2.

2012· article· en· W2977259025 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen I. Pritchard, Howard A. Burris, Hope S. Rugo, Michael Gnant, José Baselga, Martine Piccart, Shinzaburo Noguchi, Shaker R. Dakhil, Vichien Srimuninnimit, Puttisak Puttawibul, Karen A. Osborne, Pabak Mukhopadhyay, Tanya Taran, Tarek Sahmoud, Mario Campone, Gabriel N. Hortobágyi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEverolimusExemestaneInternal medicineAdverse effectTolerabilityRashBreast cancerPopulationAromatase inhibitorPlaceboOncologyCancerAromatase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

551 Background: Postmenopausal women with estrogen-receptor–positive (ER+) BC who relapse/progress on a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) are usually treated with the steroidal AI exemestane (EXE); but there is no currently approved treatment for this indication. The BOLERO-2 trial showed that adding everolimus (EVE), an oral inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), to EXE significantly improved clinical benefit beyond that of EXE alone (Hortobagyi et al, SABCS 2011, Abstract S3-7). As many women with advanced BC are elderly, the tolerability profile of EVE + EXE in this population is of interest. Methods: BOLERO-2 is a phase III, randomized, trial comparing EVE (10 mg once daily) vs placebo (PBO), both plus EXE (25 mg once daily) in postmenopausal women with advanced ER+ BC progressing or recurring after NSAIs. Safety data with a focus on elderly patients are reported at 12.5 mo median follow-up. Results: Baseline disease characteristics, age, and prior cancer therapy were well balanced between treatment arms (N = 724). At 12.5 months’ median follow-up, the addition of EVE to EXE significantly improved progression-free survival in patients <65 (HR = 0.37; P < .05) or ≥65 years of age (HR = 0.56; P < .05). Adverse events (AEs) of special interest (all grades) occurring more frequently with EVE vs PBO (overall study population) included stomatitis (66.6% vs 11.3%), infections (50.4% vs 25.2%), rash (44.0% vs 8.4%), pneumonitis (18.7% vs 0.4%), and hyperglycemia (15.4% vs 2.5%). Elderly EVE-treated patients (≥65 years) had similar or marginally lower incidence of stomatitis (52.1%), rash (32.3%), pneumonitis (14.6%), and hyperglycemia (12.5%) compared with the overall population. Grade 3/4 AEs in patients ≥70 years of age (n = 161) reported only among patients receiving EVE (n = 118) included fatigue (10.2%), anemia (10.2%), hyperglycemia (8.5%), stomatitis (7.6%), dyspnea (6.8%), pneumonitis (5.1%), neutropenia (3.4%), and hypertension (3.4%). Conclusions: Adding EVE to EXE was well tolerated in the overall population and in elderly patients with advanced BC; grade 3/4 AEs were uncommon and manageable. Overall, AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of EVE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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