MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408531295 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32030169

Q-TWiST Analysis of Sacituzumab Govitecan vs. Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Patients with HR+/HER2− Metastatic Breast Cancer

2025· article· en· W4408531295 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hope S. Rugo, Aditya Bardia, Peter Schmid, Sara M. Tolaney, Anandaroop Dasgupta, Ankita Kaushik, Wendy Verret, Marine Gosset, Adam Brufsky, Javier Cortés, Frederik Marmé

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenentechServierSeagenClovis OncologyEisaiJazz PharmaceuticalsNational Cancer InstituteBaxaltaF. Hoffmann-La RocheAmgenAriad PharmaceuticalsGilead SciencesDaiichi Sankyo EuropeBayer HealthCareSanofiPfizerMyriad GeneticsEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaQueen Mary University of London
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineMetastatic breast cancerTwistCancerAdverse effectOncologyChemotherapyRandomizationPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In TROPiCS-02, sacituzumab govitecan (SG) demonstrated significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival with improved quality of life vs. chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in patients with HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The safety profile was consistent with previous studies of SG. We assessed the benefit-–risk profile of SG vs. TPC by integrating patient preferences with clinical benefits using Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease progression or Toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) analysis in this study population. Survival time was partitioned into three health states: TOX (grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs] after randomization/before disease progression), REL (disease progression until death or end of follow-up), and TWiST (time without progression or grade ≥3 TEAEs). Health state utility weights were obtained from the published literature. The established threshold for clinically important Q-TWiST gain is 10%. SG demonstrated significantly improved Q-TWiST vs. TPC (mean 9.7 vs. 8.1 months; difference 1.6 months; 95% CI, 0.5–2.7; p = 0.0067), which increased with longer follow-up. Relative Q-TWiST improvement met the threshold for clinical importance at 10.8%. Time in TOX was numerically higher with SG than TPC, and the difference stabilized over time. Q-TWiST supports a positive benefit–risk profile for SG over TPC in patients with pretreated HR+/HER2− mBC.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207