MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-term safety of inavolisib (GDC-0077) in an ongoing phase 1/1b study evaluating monotherapy and in combination (combo) with palbociclib and/or endocrine therapy in patients (pts) with <i>PIK3CA</i>-mutated, hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (BC).

2022· article· en· W4281755040 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe L. Bédard, Melissa Accordino, Andrés Cervantes, Valentina Gambardella, Erika Hamilton, Antoîne Italiano, Dejan Juric, Kevin Kalinsky, Ian E. Krop, Mafalda Oliveira, Cristina Saura, P. Schmid, Nicholas C. Turner, Andreea Varga, Noopur Shankar, Jennifer L. Schutzman, Stephanie Royer‐Joo, Miguel Valero Martin, Komal Jhaveri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGenentech
KeywordsMedicineNeutropeniaAdverse effectInternal medicineLetrozoleGastroenterologyToxicityPhases of clinical researchPalbociclibFulvestrantCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsPharmacologyOncologyCancerTamoxifenBreast cancerMetastatic breast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1052 Background: Dysregulating mutations in PIK3CA, encoding the PI3K p110α subunit, occur in ̃40% of HR+/HER2– BCs. Inavolisib is a PI3Kα-specific inhibitor that also promotes degradation of mutant p110α. It has demonstrated encouraging preliminary antitumor activity in pts with PIK3CA-mutated HR+ BC as a monotherapy, and in combo with other anticancer agents. Methods: We included pts from NCT03006172 on treatment ≥1 year with inavolisib alone (Arm A), or in combo with palbo + letrozole (letro) (B), letro (C), fulvestrant (fulv) (D), or palbo + fulv (E; + metformin in Arm F for pts with body mass index ≥30 and/or HbA1c ≥5.7%). Inavolisib was administered orally daily (PO QD) at 3, 6, 9, or 12 mg (3+3 dose-escalation design); letro at 2.5 mg PO QD; palbo at 125 mg PO QD for 21/28 days; and fulv at 500 mg intramuscularly every 4 weeks, in 28-day cycles until intolerable toxicity/disease progression. Safety was assessed by NCI-CTCAE v4. Results: 57 female pts were included (cutoff 07/26/21; N = 1, 18, 6, 12, 15, 5 in Arms A–F); median age: 57 years (range 33–80); median lines of prior therapy: 2 (1–7). All but 2 pts, both in Arm B (3 mg), were assigned the 9 mg inavolisib recommended phase 3 dose. Overall median treatment duration: 19 months (range 12–45); median inavolisib cumulative dose intensity, 95%. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs; in ≥20 pts/35%) were hyperglycemia (68%), stomatitis (68%; grouped terms), neutropenia (58%), diarrhea (51%), nausea (39%), alopecia (35%), and rash (35%; grouped terms). The most frequent treatment-related Grade (G) 3–4 AEs (≥2 pts/4%) were neutropenia (47%), hyperglycemia (16%), leukopenia (9%), thrombocytopenia (9%), lymphopenia (7%), weight decreased, and hypokalemia (4% each). G3–4 neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and lymphopenia were all reported in palbo arms. One G5 AE of pleural effusion was reported (disease progression-related). 39 pts (68%) had ≥1 AE resulting in study treatment modification (drug interruption/dose reduction/treatment withdrawal); 11 (19%) had an inavolisib dose reduction and 2 (4%) discontinued treatment due to an AE (1 related G2 diarrhea, 1 unrelated G3 cerebrovascular disorder). AEs typically occurred during the first 6 months and tended to be less frequent in later cycles. No new safety signals were observed with long-term inavolisib use. Conclusions: These data indicate acceptable long-term tolerability. The safety profile of pts on study treatment with inavolisib alone or in combo with endocrine-based anticancer therapies for ≥1 year was similar to that reported for the overall study population. Updated data will be presented. A phase 3 study of inavolisib + palbo + fulv is enrolling (NCT04191499; INAVO120). Clinical trial information: NCT03006172.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207