MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract OT1-08-07: CONTESSA 2: A multinational, multicenter, phase 2 study of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine in patients with HER2-, HR+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who have not previously received a taxane

2020· article· en· W3010522503 on OpenAlexaff
Lee S. Schwartzberg, Jamil Asselah, Igor Bondarenko, Y.S. Chae, N. D'Acosta, Yin‐Hsun Feng, Yann Izarzugaza, Julie Lemieux, Mei-Ching Liu, Gavin Marx, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Mafalda Oliveira, Hope S. Rugo, Andrew D. Seidman, Gail Lynn Shaw Wright, Joseph O’Connell, Thomas Wei, Sung‐Bae Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapecitabineMedicineTaxaneRegimenInternal medicineMetastatic breast cancerClinical endpointChemotherapyOncologyDosingPhases of clinical researchChemotherapy regimenBreast cancerCancerClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Chemotherapy treatments with robust efficacy that preserve quality of life are needed. Tesetaxel is a novel, oral taxane that has potential advantages over currently available taxanes, including: oral administration with a low pill burden and once every 3 week (Q3W) dosing; no observed hypersensitivity reactions; preclinical evidence of central nervous system (CNS) penetration; and improved activity against chemotherapy-resistant tumors. More than 600 patients have been treated with tesetaxel in clinical studies. Tesetaxel had robust monotherapy activity in a Phase 2 study in 38 patients with HER2-, HR+ MBC, with a confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 of 45%. Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that reducing the dose of capecitabine in combination with a taxane may result in reduced toxicity without a reduction in efficacy. CONTESSA 2 investigates tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine as an all-oral regimen in taxane-naïve patients with HER2-, HR+ MBC. Trial design: CONTESSA 2 is a 125-patient, multinational, multicenter, single-arm, Phase 2 study of tesetaxel (27 mg/m2 on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus a reduced dose of capecitabine (1,650 mg/m2/day for 14 days of each 21-day cycle) in patients with HER2-, HR+ MBC who have received no more than one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease and have not previously been treated with a taxane in any setting. Patients with CNS metastases are eligible. The primary endpoint is confirmed ORR assessed by an Independent Radiologic Review Committee (IRC). A sample size of 125 will allow the ORR to be estimated with a maximum standard error of < 5%. Secondary endpoints include duration of response, pharmacokinetics (PK) of tesetaxel and potential for a PK interaction between tesetaxel and capecitabine. Enrollment was initiated in January 2019. For further information on this trial, email joconnell@odonate.com or visit clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03858972). Citation Format: Lee Schwartzberg, Jamil Asselah, Igor Bondarenko, YeeSoo Chae, Noshir DaCosta, Yin-Hsun Feng, Yann Izarzugaza, Julie Lemieux, Mei-Ching Liu, Gavin Marx, Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Mafalda Oliveira, Hope Rugo, Andrew Seidman, Gail Wright, Joseph O'Connell, Thomas Wei, Sung-Bae Kim. CONTESSA 2: A multinational, multicenter, phase 2 study of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine in patients with HER2-, HR+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who have not previously received a taxane [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-08-07.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designNon-randomized 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207