A randomized, double-blind phase II study of the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib (AG-013736) in combination with docetaxel (DOC) compared to DOC plus placebo (PL) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1003 Background: Single-agent DOC is commonly used to treat MBC. Axitinib (AG) is a potent TKI of VEGFRs. A phase I lead-in study identified 80 mg/m 2 q3wks of DOC in combination with 5 mg BID of AG as the recommended phase 2 dose. The primary objective was to determine whether the time to progression (TTP) of AG+DOC arm is superior to DOC+PL. Methods: Pts with no prior chemotherapy for MBC and =12 mos from adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT), measurable disease, ECOG performance status (PS) of 0–2, and no uncontrolled brain metastases were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive treatment with either DOC+AG or DOC+PL without prophylactic growth factor in cycle 1. Tumor measurements were performed q9wks. Pts were stratified according to estrogen receptor (ER) status, prior aCT and PS (0–1 or 2). Results: A total of 168 pts were randomized. 92 pts had received prior aCT, 27 of whom received a prior taxane. Treatment arms were well balanced for prior adjuvant and taxane therapy. A median of 7 cycles of AG+DOC (range: 1–18) and 7 cycles of DOC+PL (range: 1–23) were administered. The most common non-hematologic adverse events observed in the AG+DOC arm included diarrhea (60%), nausea (53%), alopecia (51%), fatigue (49%), stomatitis (44%) and vomiting (40%). Grade 3/4 adverse events that were increased with AG+DOC vs DOC included febrile neutropenia (16 vs 7%), fatigue (13 vs 5%), stomatitis (13 vs 2%), diarrhea (11 vs 0%) and hypertension (5 vs 2%). Other grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were similar in both arms. The median TTP (by RECIST) was 8.2 mo with AG+DOC arm and 7 mo with DOC+PL arm with a hazard ratio of 0.73 (prespecified, one-sided p=0.052). The overall response rate (ORR) was 40% for AG+DOC arm and 23% for DOC+PL arm (p=0.038). In a hypothesis-generating subgroup analysis, the median TTP in patients receiving prior aCT was 9.0 mo with AG+DOC arm and 6.3 mo with DOC+PL arm with a hazard ratio of 0.54 (p=0.012). Within this stratum, ORR was 45% for AG+DOC arm and 13% for DOC+PL arm (p=0.003). Conclusions: The anti-angiogenic TKI AG combined with DOC (80 mg/m 2 q3wks) as first line therapy for MBC has an acceptable safety profile and promising anti-tumor activity. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".