MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280651407 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-3811

VERONICA: Randomized Phase II Study of Fulvestrant and Venetoclax in ER-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Post-CDK4/6 Inhibitors – Efficacy, Safety, and Biomarker Results

2022· article· en· W4280651407 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey J. Lindeman, Tharu M. Fernando, Rebecca Bowen, Katarzyna J. Jerzak, Xinni Song, Thomas Decker, Frances Boyle, Steve McCune, Anne Armstrong, Catherine Shannon, Gianfilippo Bertelli, Ching‐Wei Chang, Rupal Desai, Kushagra Gupta, Timothy R. Wilson, Aulde Fléchais, Aditya Bardia

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationOttawa HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersRoche
KeywordsFulvestrantVenetoclaxInternal medicineMedicineMetastatic breast cancerOncologyCancerClinical endpointBreast cancerHazard ratioEstrogen receptorRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalLeukemiaChronic lymphocytic leukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Despite promising activity in hematopoietic malignancies, efficacy of the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) inhibitor venetoclax in solid tumors is unknown. We report the prespecified VERONICA primary results, a randomized phase II clinical trial evaluating venetoclax and fulvestrant in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, post-cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pre-/postmenopausal females ≥18 years were randomized 1:1 to venetoclax (800 mg orally daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular; cycle 1: days 1 and 15; subsequent 28-day cycles: day 1) or fulvestrant alone. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. Exploratory biomarker analyses included BCL2 and BCL extra-large (BCLXL) tumor expression, and PIK3CA circulating tumor DNA mutational status. RESULTS: At primary analysis (cutoff: August 5, 2020; n = 103), venetoclax did not significantly improve CBR [venetoclax plus fulvestrant: 11.8% (n = 6/51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.44-23.87); fulvestrant: 13.7% (7/51; 5.70-26.26); risk difference -1.96% (95% CI, -16.86 to 12.94)]. Median PFS was 2.69 months (95% CI, 1.94-3.71) with venetoclax plus fulvestrant versus 1.94 months (1.84-3.55) with fulvestrant (stratified HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.61-1.45; P = 0.7853). Overall survival data were not mature. A nonsignificant improvement of CBR and PFS was observed in patients whose tumors had strong BCL2 expression (IHC 3+), a BCL2/BCLXL Histoscore ratio ≥1, or PIK3CA-wild-type status. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not indicate clinical utility for venetoclax plus fulvestrant in endocrine therapy-resistant, CDK4/6 inhibitor-refractory metastatic breast tumors, but suggest possible increased dependence on BCLXL in this setting.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations90
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207