Open-label phase III randomized controlled trial comparing taxane-based chemotherapy (Tax) with lapatinib (L) or trastuzumab (T) as first-line therapy for women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer: Interim analysis (IA) of NCIC CTG MA.31/GSK EGF 108919.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA671 Background: The relative efficacy of L vs T when combined with Tax chemotherapy in the first-line setting of metastatic breast cancer (BC) is unknown. Methods: MA.31 compares Tax-based therapy, paclitaxel 80mg/m 2 wkly or docetaxel 75mg/m 2 3 wkly for 24 wks in combination with L or T. The L dose was 1,250 mg po daily with Tax followed by 1,500 mg daily (LTax/L). After a loading dose, the T dose was 2 mg/kg wkly or 6 mg/kg 3 wkly + Tax followed by T 6 mg/kg 3 wkly (TTax/T). Stratification was by prior neo/adjuvant HER2 therapy, prior neo/adjuvant Tax, planned Tax (paclitaxel vs docetaxel), and liver metastases. The primary endpoint is ITT progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time from randomization to objective progressive disease based on RECIST criteria or death from any cause. The protocol-specified IA was performed after observing 333 PFS events; the trial was to stop if the 2-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test was less than 0.03. The NCIC CTG’s independent DSMC reviewed IA results and recommended disclosure because the superiority boundary was crossed. A secondary analysis utilized central laboratory-confirmed HER2 + status. Results: Between July 17 2008 and Dec 1 2011, 652 pts were accrued. Data from 636 pts (525 HER2 centrally confirmed) were included in the IA with clinical cutoff date of Nov 7 2011 and database lock of Apr 13 2012. Median follow-up was 13.6 mos, 12.9 mos for LTax/L pts and 14.0 mos for TTax/T patients. In the ITT analysis, PFS was inferior with LTax/L compared to TTax/T hazard ratio (HR) =1.33; 95% CI 1.06-1.67; p=0.01. LTax/L had median PFS 8.8 mos (95% CI 8.3-10.6) compared to TTax/T 11.4 mos (95% CI 10.8-13.7). PFS in the centrally confirmed HER2+ had HR 1.48 (95%CI 1.15-1.92; p=0.003) (LTax/L to TTax/T). No difference in overall survival was detected (LTax/L to TTax/T) HR= 1.1 (95% CI 0.75-1.61; p=0.62). More grade 3-4 diarrhea and rash was observed with LTax/L (p<0.001). Conclusions: LTax/L therapy is associated with a shorter PFS compared to TTax/T as first line therapy for HER2+ metastatic BC. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00667251. CCSRI grant: 021039. Supported by GlaxoSmithKline.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".