Final Efficacy Results of Neratinib in HER2-positive Hormone Receptor-positive Early-stage Breast Cancer From the Phase III ExteNET Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The ExteNET trial demonstrated improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, versus placebo in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2 + )/hormone receptor-positive (HR + ) early-stage breast cancer (eBC). Patients and Methods ExteNET was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of 2840 patients with HER2 + eBC after neoadjuvant/adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. Patients were stratified by HR status and randomly assigned 1-year oral neratinib 240 mg/day or placebo. The primary endpoint was iDFS. Descriptive analyses were performed in patients with HR + eBC who initiated treatment ≤ 1 year (HR + /≤ 1-year) and > 1 year (HR + /> 1-year) post-trastuzumab. Results HR + /≤ 1-year and HR + /> 1-year populations comprised 1334 (neratinib, n = 670; placebo, n = 664) and 297 (neratinib, n = 146; placebo, n = 151) patients, respectively. Absolute iDFS benefits at 5 years were 5.1% in HR + /≤ 1-year (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.82) and 1.3% in HR + />1-year (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.29-1.84). In HR + /≤ 1-year, neratinib was associated with a numerical improvement in overall survival (OS) at 8 years (absolute benefit, 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.13). Of 354 patients in the HR + /≤ 1-year group who received neoadjuvant therapy, 295 had residual disease, and results showed absolute benefits of 7.4% at 5-year iDFS (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.07) and 9.1% at 8-year OS (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.92). There were fewer central nervous system events with neratinib. Adverse events were similar to those previously reported. Conclusion Neratinib significantly improved iDFS in the HER2 + /HR + /≤ 1-year population, and a similar trend was observed in patients with residual disease following neoadjuvant treatment. Numerical improvements in central nervous system events and OS were consistent with iDFS benefits and suggest long-term benefit for neratinib in this population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".