Palbociclib versus abemaciclib in HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: an indirect comparison of patient-reported end points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To assess the relative impact of palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL) and abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABEM + FUL) on patient-reported outcomes in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. Patients & methods: Anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted using individual patient data from PALOMA-3 (PAL + FUL) and summary-level data from MONARCH-2 (ABEM + FUL). Outcomes included the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its breast cancer-specific module (QLQ-BR23). Results: Significantly different changes from baseline favoring PAL + FUL compared with ABEM + FUL were observed in global quality of life (6.95 [95% CI: 2.19–11.71]; p = 0.004) and several functional/symptom scales, including emotional functioning, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea and systemic therapy side effects. Conclusion: PAL + FUL was associated with more favorable patient-reported outcomes than ABEM + FUL in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".