MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376613623 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.101409

220P Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders for metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative breast cancer according to ESR1 mutation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

2023· review· en· W4376613623 on OpenAlexaff
R. Novello, Miriam Lobo, M. Silveira Vilbert, Solange Moraes Sanches, Marcelle Goldner Cesca

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisOncologyRandomized controlled trialEstrogen receptorBreast cancerSelective estrogen receptor modulatorMetastatic breast cancerFulvestrantCancerCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) are a promising treatment after disease progression on first-line endocrine therapy (ET) for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (aBC) patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) aimed to assess the efficacy of oral SERDS versus standard of care (SOC) ET according to ESR1 mutation (ESR1mut). We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and congresses websites (ASCO and ESMO) for RCTs including HR+/HER2 negative aBC patients who were randomized to oral SERDs versus SOC ET and had received at least one prior line of ET. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) according to ESR1mut and objective response (ORR). Heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 statistics, and random-effect models were fitted. Of 519 studies screened, four RCTs were included, comprising 1290 patients, of whom; 41% harbored ESR1mut, 92.5% were postmenopausal, and 66% had visceral metastasis. Prior treatment for aBC included iCDK4/6 (73.3%), chemotherapy (21.6%), and; 25.2% of patients received ≥ two prior ET. In a pooled analysis, oral SERDs significantly improved PFS compared to SOC ET (HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.63-0.93 p=0.007]). ESR1mut patients treated with SERDs achieved a significant prolonged PFS than SOC ET (HR 0.59 [95% CI 0.45-0.77 p<0.001]), which was not seen in the wild-type ESR1 group (HR 0.84 [95%CI 0.67-1.04 p=0.11]). ORR was 11% in patients treated with SERDs and 7.4% in SOC ET (p=0,06).Table: 220PTrialPhaseNFollow-up Median, monthsOral SERD (N)SOC ET (N)ESR1mutBidard, 2022III47715.1Elacestrant (239)Fulvestrant, AI (238)228Oliveira, 2022II14716.6Arm 1: camizestrant 75mg (74)Fulvestrant (73)88146Arm 2: camizestrant 150mg (73)88Tonaley, 2022II290NAAmcenestrant (143)Fulvestrant, AI, tamoxifen (147)120Jimenez, 2022II3037.89Giredestrant (151)Fulvestrant, AI (152)90N: number; SERD: Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader; SOC: standard of care; ET: endocrine therapy; mut: mutant; NA: not available. Open table in a new tab N: number; SERD: Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader; SOC: standard of care; ET: endocrine therapy; mut: mutant; NA: not available. Oral SERDs improved PFS compared to SOC ET for ESR1mut HR+/HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer, but not for unselected patients.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0400.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO OpenSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207