Updated results from the phase IIIb complement-1 study of ribociclib (RIB) plus letrozole (LET) in the treatment of HR+, HER2-advanced breast cancer (ABC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1055 Background: Real-world evidence is important as it complements data from randomized controlled trialse report updated results from CompLEEment-1, a Phase IIIb trial evaluating RIB+LET in an expanded population, the largest CDK4/6i trial in ABC to date. Methods: Patients (pts) with HR+, HER2– ABC, ≤ 1 line of prior CT and no prior ET for ABC received RIB+LET. Study design has been reported previously (De Laurentiis, et al. ASCO 2019). Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Results: 3,246 pts received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment. Median duration of follow-up was 25.4 months (mos) (15 additional mos since interim analysis [De Laurentiis, et al. ABC5 2019]). Median treatment exposure was 17.8 mos. Baseline characteristics indicated a diverse population, including men (1.2%), premenopausal women (22.2%), and pts aged ≥ 70 years (19.5%); 112 (3.5%) pts had an ECOG PS of 2, 194 (6.0%) pts received prior CT for ABC, and 51 (1.6%) pts had stable CNS lesions. The most common adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (61.1%), nausea (35.9%), and fatigue (23.4%). Grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities ( > 5.0 %) were decreased neutrophils (54.8%), leukocytes (25.9%), and lymphocytes (12.6%). Grade 3/4 biochemical abnormalities ( > 5.0 %) were increased ALT (9.1%) and AST (6.7%). An increase of > 60 ms in QTcF interval from baseline occurred in 189 (5.9%) pts, while post-baseline QTcF of > 480 to ≤ 500 ms and > 500 ms occurred in 59 (1.8%) and 42 (1.3%) pts, respectively. Treatment-related AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 418 (12.9%) pts. Of 74 (2.3%) on treatment deaths, 38 (1.2%) were due to breast cancer. Median time to progression was 27.1 mos (95% CI, 25.7-NE), overall response rate was 43.6% (95% CI, 41.5-45.8%), and clinical benefit rate was 69.1% (95% CI, 67.1-71.1%) for pts with measurable disease at baseline. Conclusions: This analysis confirms the safety and efficacy of RIB+LET in a large, diverse cohort of pts with HR+, HER2– ABC (with no previous ET for ABC), closely resembling real-world clinical practice. Safety and efficacy data were consistent with those observed in the MONALEESA trials, supporting the use of RIB+LET in the first-line setting. NCT02941926. Clinical trial information: NCT02941926 .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".