Preliminary efficacy data of triple-negative breast cancer cohort of NCI 9881 study: A phase II study of cediranib in combination with olaparib in advanced solid tumors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1077 Background: Cediranib, a pan-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, suppresses expression of BRCA1, BRCA2, and RAD51 and increases sensitivity of tumors to poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in vitro. Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, demonstrates clinical efficacy in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. We therefore tested the anti-tumor activity of the combination of cediranib and olaparib in patients (pts) with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Methods: This multi-institutional, two-stage, phase II study enrolled patients with metastatic TNBC previously treated with a minimum of one prior line of systemic therapy in the advanced setting. Patients were treated with cediranib 30mg po daily plus olaparib 200mg po BID until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by RECIST v1.1. Baseline tumor biopsies were obtained for biomarker analyses. Results: Baseline characteristics of the 37pts enrolled are summarized below. The overall objective response rate was 14% (95% CI: 0.025, 0.2453). Median duration of response was 2.0 months (mos) with a range of 1.8 to 6.3 mos. Disease control rate ((# of pts with CR, PR or SD)/(# of evaluable pts)) was 81% (95% CI: 0.6846, 0.937). Median PFS was 3.7 mos (95% CI: 2.1, 4.3). Grade 3/4 adverse events (G3/4 AEs), irrespective of attribution, occurred in 25 of 38 (66%).G3/4 AEs occurring in > 5% of pts were hypertension (24%) and dyspnea (11%), diarrhea (8%) vomiting (8%). Conclusions: The cediranib/olaparib combination resulted in promising objective responses in 14% of biomarker-unselected patients with heavily pre-treated, metastatic TNBC. The regimen required prompt initiation of antihypertensives, but AEs were overall manageable. Analyses of mutation status in homologous recombination DNA repair genes are ongoing and will be correlated with clinical outcome. Clinical trial information: NCT02498613 . [Table: see text]
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".