MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165169142 · doi:10.1002/onco.13830

Efficacy of Neratinib Plus Capecitabine in the Subgroup of Patients with Central Nervous System Involvement from the NALA Trial

2021· article· en· W3165169142 on OpenAlexaff
Sara A. Hurvitz, Cristina Saura, Mafalda Oliveira, Maureen Trudeau, Beverly Moy, Suzette Delaloge, William J. Gradishar, Sung‐Bae Kim, Barbara Haley, Larisa Ryvo, Ming–Shen Dai, Vladimir Milovanov, Jesús Alarcón, Sujith Kalmadi, Eduardo Cronemberger, Cristiano de Pádua Souza, Luciana Castro Garcia Landeiro, Ron Bose, Judith D. Bebchuk, Fairooz F. Kabbinavar, Richard Bryce, Kiana Keyvanjah, Adam Brufsky

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersPuma Biotechnology
KeywordsCapecitabineMedicineLapatinibNeratinibInternal medicineHazard ratioCumulative incidenceGastroenterologyOncologyConfidence intervalCancerBreast cancerTrastuzumabColorectal cancerCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neratinib has efficacy in central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We report outcomes among patients with CNS metastases at baseline from the phase III NALA trial of neratinib plus capecitabine (N + C) versus lapatinib plus capecitabine (L + C). MATERIALS AND METHODS: twice daily) orally. Independently adjudicated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and CNS endpoints were considered. RESULTS: Of 621 patients enrolled, 101 (16.3%) had known CNS metastases at baseline (N + C, n = 51; L + C, n = 50); 81 had received prior CNS-directed radiotherapy and/or surgery. In the CNS subgroup, mean PFS through 24 months was 7.8 months with N + C versus 5.5 months with L + C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.05), and mean OS through 48 months was 16.4 versus 15.4 months (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.59-1.38). At 12 months, cumulative incidence of interventions for CNS disease was 25.5% for N + C versus 36.0% for L + C, and cumulative incidence of progressive CNS disease was 26.2% versus 41.6%, respectively. In patients with target CNS lesions at baseline (n = 32), confirmed intracranial objective response rates were 26.3% and 15.4%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: These analyses suggest improved PFS and CNS outcomes with N + C versus L + C in patients with CNS metastases from HER2-positive MBC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In a subgroup of patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2-positive breast cancer after two or more previous HER2-directed regimens, the combination of neratinib plus capecitabine was associated with improved progression-free survival and CNS outcomes compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine. These findings build on previous phase II and III studies describing efficacy of neratinib in the prevention and treatment of CNS metastases, and support a role for neratinib as a systemic treatment option in the management of patients with HER2-positive brain metastases following antibody-based HER2-directed therapies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations62
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207