CAMBRIA-1 & CAMBRIA-2 phase III trials: camizestrant versus standard endocrine therapy in ER+/HER2– early breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) are a promising therapeutic option under investigation for patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. The efficacy of novel SERDs in the treatment of advanced disease has prompted investigation into their use in the early disease setting, to reduce breast cancer recurrence. Here, we describe the design and rationale of the phase III, randomized, open-label CAMBRIA-1 and CAMBRIA-2 studies. CAMBRIA-1 and CAMBRIA-2 are comparing the next-generation oral SERD camizestrant versus standard-of-care endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen) in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer, who are at intermediate or high risk of disease recurrence. CAMBRIA-1 is comparing 5 years of camizestrant versus endocrine therapy in patients who have already received 2–5 years of standard endocrine therapy, with or without cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, and are without recurrence. CAMBRIA-2 is comparing 7 years of upfront adjuvant camizestrant versus endocrine therapy, with abemaciclib permitted in both treatment arms for the first 2 years. The primary endpoint for both studies is invasive breast cancer-free survival. Secondary endpoints include invasive disease-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, overall survival, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, safety and tolerability.Tweetable abstract: CAMBRIA-1 and CAMBRIA-2 are ongoing, randomized, open-label trials of adjuvant camizestrant, either as an upfront treatment or as a treatment after standard endocrine therapy, in patients with HR+/HER2– early breast cancer at intermediate to high risk of disease recurrence.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05774951 (CAMBRIA-1); NCT05952557 (CAMBRIA-2).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".