Trastuzumab Duocarmazine in Pretreated Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Open-Label, Randomized, Phase III Trial (TULIP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted therapy is standard of care for HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer, but most patients develop progressive disease with persistent HER2 expression. No definitive treatment guidance currently exists beyond second line. Trastuzumab duocarmazine (T-Duo) is a third-generation, HER2-targeted antibody-drug conjugate that demonstrated efficacy and acceptable safety in phase I studies of heavily pretreated patients with HER2+/HER2-low breast cancer. METHODS In this open-label, randomized, phase III trial, T-Duo was compared with physician's choice (PC) in patients with unresectable locally advanced/metastatic HER2+ breast cancer with progression during/after ≥2 HER2-targeted therapies or after trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. RESULTS In total, 437 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to T-Duo (n = 291) or PC (n = 146). The median age was 56.0 years (range, 24-86); most patients (93.6%) had metastatic disease. The median time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to trial entry was 3.5 years; the median number of prior HER2-targeted therapies in metastatic setting was three. The median PFS was 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 7.2) with T-Duo versus 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.5; hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.84]; P = .002) with PC. PFS benefit was maintained across most predefined subgroups. The median overall survival (first analysis) was 20.4 (T-Duo) versus 16.3 months (PC; HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.09]; P = .153). Objective response rate was 27.8% (T-Duo) versus 29.5% (PC); other efficacy end points—clinical benefit rate, duration of response, and reduction in target lesion measurement—tended to favor T-Duo. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 52.8% (T-Duo) versus 48.2% (PC). CONCLUSION Treatment with T-Duo was manageable, but tolerability was affected by prevalent ocular toxicity, leading to a higher discontinuation rate in the T-Duo arm. T-Duo significantly reduced the risk of progression in patients with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who have progressed during/after ≥2 HER2-targeted therapies or after T-DM1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".