Prospective Cohort Study of Palbociclib Treatment in Postmenopausal Patients With Unresectable and Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Study Protocol for a CSPOR-BC Palbociclib Cohort Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Combining palbociclib with letrozole or fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer. However, combining palbociclib to endocrine treatment increases toxicity and cost compared with the endocrine treatment alone. Moreover, palbociclib treatment may affect the outcome of the subsequent treatment because its benefit in terms of overall survival has not been observed yet. Therefore, it is crucial to examine whether palbociclib can improve clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) of patients in the real world. Methods: A prospective observational study with palbociclib is planned in 3 cohorts (A, B, and C) as per the line of endocrine treatment (i.e., first-line, second-line, or third-line or later-line treatment) for postmenopausal metastatic or unresectable breast cancer. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival in each treatment line, the most commonly used endpoint for global phase 3 studies. As per the results of these studies, the planned sample size is 700 cases: cohort A, 340 cases; cohort B, 200 cases; and cohort C, 130 cases. The secondary endpoints are overall survival, clinical benefit rate, time to chemotherapy, adverse events (AEs), patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and health-related QoL (HRQoL). These endpoints are evaluated again during the subsequent treatment. This study will examine whether the efficacy, safety, and QoL effects of palbociclib treatment in daily clinical practice are not inferior compared to those in clinical trials and whether palbociclib treatment affects the efficacy and safety of the subsequent treatment. Moreover, this study would provide information on the most effective time of adding palbociclib to endocrine treatment. Discussion: The reproducibility of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using real-world data must be confirmed to evaluate whether real-world treatment benefits are similar to those observed in RCTs. Although the efficacy of palbociclib has been confirmed in RCTs, Aes of this drug, including its toxicities and cost, are not comparable to those of mono-hormone therapies. Thus, PROs/HRQoL is an important element of this study because several patients with HR-positive metastatic breast cancer have diseases for which sequential hormone therapy is preferential.
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 | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".