MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Alpelisib + endocrine therapy in patients with <i>PIK3CA</i>-mutated, hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, advanced breast cancer: Analysis of all 3 cohorts of the BYLieve study.

2023· article· en· W4379329068 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Chia, Patrick Neven, Eva Ciruelos, Florence Lerebours, Manuel Ruíz‐Borrego, Pamela Drullinsky, Aleix Prat, Yeon Hee Park, Dejan Juric, Nicholas C. Turner, Yogesh Chattar, Heather Patino, Murat Akdere, Hope S. Rugo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
KeywordsMedicineLetrozoleFulvestrantInternal medicineTolerabilityBreast cancerCohortOncologyCancerMetastatic breast cancerAdverse effectGynecologyAromataseEstrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1078 Background: The phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha ( PIK3CA) gene is mutated in ~40% of patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Alpelisib (ALP), an α-selective PI3K inhibitor and degrader, is indicated in combination with fulvestrant (FUL) for pts with HR+, HER2− ABC following progression on/after endocrine therapy (ET)-based treatments (tx). Primary analyses from the 3 cohorts of the Phase 2, open-label, noncomparative BYLieve study demonstrated the efficacy of ALP + ET in pts with HR+, HER2–, PIK3CA-mutated ABC who progressed on/after other tx, including immediately after a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i). Presented here are efficacy and safety data from the full 3 cohorts of the BYLieve study. Methods: Pts in all 3 cohorts completed ≥18 mo follow-up plus 1 mo safety follow-up. Efficacy assessments included DoR, BOR, PFS, PFS2, and OS. Safety/tolerability of ALP were also assessed. Median (m) PFS, PFS2, and OS were assessed by Kaplan-Meier methodology per local investigator assessment. Results: Cohort A (ALP + FUL) comprised 127 pts whose immediate prior tx was CDK4/6i + aromatase inhibitor (AI); Cohort B (ALP + letrozole) enrolled 126 pts whose immediate prior tx was CDK4/6i + FUL. In Cohort C (ALP + FUL), 126 pts had disease progression on/after AI and received CT or ET as immediate prior tx. Median follow-up for the 3 cohorts was 21.8, 25.3, and 18.5 mo, respectively. mPFS in Cohorts A, B, and C was 8.0 mo (95% CI, 5.6-8.6), 5.6 mo (3.7-7.1), and 5.6 mo (5.4-8.1), respectively; mPFS2 was 15.2 mo (95% CI, 11.4-21.7), 13.0 mo (10.2-13.9), and 13.5 mo (11.5-17.3), respectively. mOS in Cohorts A, B, and C was 27.3 mo (95% CI, 21.3-32.7), 29.0 mo (24.5-34.8), and 20.7 mo (16.9-28.1), respectively. Efficacy of ALP + ET in 2nd and 3rd lines will be presented. In Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively, 29 (22.8%), 19 (15.1%), and 23 (18.3%) pts discontinued tx due to adverse events (AEs). The most common any grade AEs in all 3 cohorts (A; B; C) were diarrhea (n = 82, 64.6%; n = 86, 68.3%; n = 68, 54.0%), hyperglycemia (n = 76, 59.8%; n = 82, 65.1%; n = 85, 67.5%), nausea (n = 59, 46.5%; n = 69, 54.8%; n = 51, 40.5%), rash (n = 40, 31.5%; n = 39, 31.0%; n = 51, 40.5%), and fatigue (n = 39, 30.7%; n = 39, 31.0%; n = 44, 34.9%). Hyperglycemia was the most common grade ≥3 AE, observed in 37 (29.1%), 32 (25.4%), and 30 (23.6%) pts in Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. Conclusions: After ≥18 mo follow-up, with mature data, ALP + ET demonstrated clinical activity in BYLieve Cohorts A, B, and C. Within the trial, ALP + ET showed median OS between 20.7 mo and 29.0 mo following prior CDK4/6i, chemotherapy, or ET. AEs associated with ALP were well defined and manageable, with no new safety signals observed in any cohort. Clinical trial information: NCT03056755 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies→French-language works237,207→