MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410919567 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2505725

Vepdegestrant, a PROTAC Estrogen Receptor Degrader, in Advanced Breast Cancer

2025· article· en· W4410919567 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Campone, Michelino De Laurentiis, Komal Jhaveri, Xichun Hu, Sylvain Ladoire, Anne Patsouris, Claudio Zamagni, Jiuwei Cui, Marina Elena Cazzaniga, Timuçin Çil, Katarzyna J. Jerzak, C.S. Fuentes, Tetsuhiro Yoshinami, Álvaro Rodríguez-Lescure, Ahmet Sezer, Andrea Fontana, Valentina Guarneri, Andrea Molckovsky, Marie‐Ange Mouret‐Reynier, Umut Demırcı, Yongqiang Zhang, Olga Valota, Dongrui R. Lu, Marcella Martignoni, Janaki Parameswaran, Xin Zhi, Erika Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Canadian institutionsGrand River HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersPfizer
KeywordsBreast cancerEstrogen receptorEstrogenOncologyCancerMedicineInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundVepdegestrant is an oral proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) estrogen receptor (ER) degrader that directly harnesses the ubiquitin–proteasome system. MethodsIn this phase 3, open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled patients with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer who had received one previous line of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor therapy plus one line of endocrine therapy (and up to one additional line of endocrine therapy). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive vepdegestrant at a dose of 200 mg orally once every day of each 28-day cycle or fulvestrant at a dose of 500 mg, administered intramuscularly, on day 1 and day 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of subsequent cycles, with randomization stratified according to ESR1-mutation status and presence or absence of visceral disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review among the patients with ESR1 mutations and among all the patients who underwent randomization. Progression-free survival was estimated with Kaplan–Meier methods and hazard ratios with a stratified Cox proportional-hazards model. Research Summary Vepdegestrant, a PROTAC Estrogen Receptor Degrader, in Breast Cancer ResultsA total of 624 patients underwent randomization; 313 were assigned to receive vepdegestrant, and 311 to receive fulvestrant. Among the 270 patients with ESR1 mutations, the median progression-free survival was 5.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7 to 7.4) with vepdegestrant and 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.5) with fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78]; P<0.001). Among all the patients, the median progression-free survival was 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.3) with vepdegestrant and 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.0) with fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.01]; P=0.07). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 23.4% of the patients in the vepdegestrant group and in 17.6% of the patients in the fulvestrant group. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 2.9% and 0.7% of the patients, respectively. ConclusionsAmong patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, vepdegestrant was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than fulvestrant in the subgroup with ESR1 mutations but not in the full patient population. (Funded by Pfizer and Arvinas Estrogen Receptor; VERITAC-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05654623.)

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)0.001
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations94
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicProtein Degradation and InhibitorsFrench-language works237,207