Phase II Study of Afatinib in Patients With Tumors With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Activating Mutations: Results From the National Cancer Institute–Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Subprotocol EAY131-B
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: -activating mutations. METHODS: single-nucleotide variants or insertions/deletions detected by the National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice next-generation sequencing assay. Patients had performance status ≤ 1, left ventricular ejection fraction > 50%, grade ≤ 1 diarrhea, and no prior human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapy. Patients received afatinib 40 mg once daily in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points were 6-month progression-free survival, overall survival, toxicity, and molecular correlates. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients were assigned and 40 were enrolled. The median age was 62 years, 78% were female, 68% had performance status = 1, and 58% had received > 3 prior therapies. The confirmed ORR was 2.7% (n = 1 of 37; 90% CI, 0.14 to 12.2), and 6-month progression-free survival was 12.0% (90% CI, 5.6 to 25.8). A confirmed partial response occurred in a patient with adenocarcinoma of extra-mammary Paget disease of skin who progressed after cycle 6. Two unconfirmed partial responses were observed (low-grade serous gynecological tract and estrogen receptor-positive/HER2-negative immunohistochemistry breast ductal carcinoma). Of 12 patients with breast cancer, 1 additional patient with lobular carcinoma (estrogen receptor-positive/HER2 fluorescent in situ hybridization) had a 51% reduction in target lesions but progressed because of a new lesion at cycle 6. The most common (> 20%) treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (68%), mucositis (43%), fatigue (40%), acneiform rash (30%), dehydration (27%), vomiting (27%), nausea (27%), anemia (27%), and anorexia (22%). Four patients (11%) discontinued because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Although afatinib did not meet the prespecified threshold for antitumor activity in this heavily pretreated cohort, the response in a rare tumor type is notable. The safety profile of afatinib was consistent with prior studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".