Tucatinib vs Placebo, Both in Combination With Trastuzumab and Capecitabine, for Previously Treated ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients With Brain Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: It is estimated that up to 50% of patients with ERBB2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) will develop brain metastases (BMs), which is associated with poor prognosis. Previous reports of the HER2CLIMB trial have demonstrated that tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine provides survival and intracranial benefits for patients with ERBB2-positive MBC and BMs. Objective: To describe overall survival (OS) and intracranial outcomes from tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with ERBB2-positive MBC and BMs with an additional 15.6 months of follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: HER2CLIMB is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine. The 612 patients, including those with active or stable BMs, had ERBB2-positive MBC previously treated with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab emtansine. The study was conducted from February 23, 2016, to May 3, 2019. Data from February 23, 2016, to February 8, 2021, were analyzed. Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive tucatinib (300 mg orally twice daily) or placebo (orally twice daily), both in combination with trastuzumab (6 mg/kg intravenously or subcutaneously every 3 weeks with an initial loading dose of 8 mg/kg) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 of each 3-week cycle). Main Outcomes and Measures: Evaluations in this exploratory subgroup analysis included OS and intracranial progression-free survival (CNS-PFS) in patients with BMs, confirmed intracranial objective response rate (ORR-IC) and duration of intracranial response (DOR-IC) in patients with measurable intracranial disease at baseline, and new brain lesion-free survival in all patients. Only OS was prespecified before the primary database lock. Results: At baseline, 291 of 612 patients (47.5%) had BMs. Median age was 52 years (range, 22-75 years), and 289 (99.3%) were women. At median follow-up of 29.6 months (range, 0.1-52.9 months), median OS was 9.1 months longer in the tucatinib-combination group (21.6 months; 95% CI, 18.1-28.5) vs the placebo-combination group (12.5 months; 95% CI, 11.2-16.9). The tucatinib-combination group showed greater clinical benefit in CNS-PFS and ORR-IC compared with the placebo-combination group. The DOR-IC was 8.6 months (95% CI, 5.5-10.3 months) in the tucatinib-combination group and 3.0 months (95% CI, 3.0-10.3 months) in the placebo-combination group. Risk of developing new brain lesions as the site of first progression or death was reduced by 45.1% in the tucatinib-combination group vs the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36-0.85]). Conclusions and Relevance: This subgroup analysis found that tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine improved OS while reducing the risk of developing new brain lesions, further supporting the importance of this treatment option for patients with ERBB2-positive MBC, including those with BMs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02614794.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".