MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A double-blind placebo controlled randomized phase III trial of fulvestrant and ipatasertib as treatment for advanced HER2-negative and estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer following progression on first line CDK 4/6 inhibitor and aromatase inhibitor: The CCTG/BCT MA.40/FINER study (NCT04650581).

2025· article· en· W4411026697 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen Chia, Andrew Redfern, Jean-Pierre M. Ayoub, Haji Chalchal, Daniel Rayson, Moira Rushton, Christine Desbiens, Dhanusha Sabanathan, Jacques Raphael, Angela Chan, Jessica Singh, Christine Simmons, Nicholas Zdenkowski, Sheridan Wilson, Danielle Rodin, David W. Cescon, Frauke Schimmöller, Lisa Gallinaro, Bingshu E. Chen, Wendy R. Parulekar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkWestern UniversityHôpital du Saint-SacrementPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyOttawa HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFulvestrantMedicineEstrogen receptorHER2 negativeMetastatic breast cancerPalbociclibPlaceboInternal medicineDouble blindCyclin-dependent kinaseBreast cancerOncologyEstrogenCancerPathologyCell cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA1005 Background: Standard first line therapy in ER+/ HER2 negative endocrine sensitive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI. Upon progression the majority of patients will receive further endocrine based therapy. Alterations in PI3K/AKT pathway genes are a known mechanism of endocrine resistance – either de novo or acquired. The MA.40 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the AKT inhibitor ipatasertib versus placebo plus fulvestrant in the metastatic breast cancer (MBC) setting immediately post progression on 1 st line CDK4/6 inhibitor and AI. Methods: This phase III, randomized, double-blind trial enrolled pre/peri/postmenopausal women and men with ER+/HER-2 negative MBC. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ipatasertib plus fulvestrant versus (vs) placebo plus fulvestrant. Stratification factors included: AKT pathway altered ( PIK3CA , AKT1 , and/or PTEN genomic alteration(s)) vs wild-type/unknown and endocrine resistance (primary vs secondary). Primary objective: To compare investigator assessed PFS (RECIST 1.1) between treatment arms in the ITT population. Pre-specified secondary analysis: PFS in the AKT pathway altered cohort using a hierarchical procedure. The FoundationOne Liquid cfDNA NGS assay was utilized to assess genomic alterations in the AKT pathway for stratification. Results: 250 participants (females 247/males 3) were enrolled from Canada, Australia and New Zealand between January 2021 and May 2024. Baseline characteristics between arms were balanced. 44.4% of the study population had AKT pathway alteration(s) per cfDNA assay. Median follow-up 15.2 months(mo); proportion remaining on protocol treatment at time of analysis 21.0% ipatasertib vs 11.3% placebo arm. Median PFS ITT ipatasertib vs placebo arms were: 5.32 mo (95% CI: 3.58 to 5.62 mo) vs 1.94 mo (95% CI: 1.84 to 3.22 ) [HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.81; p= 0.0007] and in the AKT pathway altered cohort: 5.45 mo (95% CI: 3.55 to 11.01 ) vs 1.91 mo (95% CI: 1.77 to 3.48) [HR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.72; p= 0.0005]. Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AE) ipatasertib vs placebo arms (%):37.1 vs 27.4. Grade 3 or higher non haematological treatment related AE > 1% ipatasertib vs placebo arms: diarrhea (16% vs 0%); fatigue (3% vs 0%); vomiting (2% vs 0), rash (2% vs 0%). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs ipatasertib vs placebo arms: 6.5% vs 0.8%. Conclusions: Ipatasertib plus fulvestrant significantly prolongs PFS compared to placebo/fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor–positive MBC post progression on 1 st line CDK 4/6 inhibitor and AI. Follow-up and additional analyses continue. Supported by Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, CCS grant #707213. Clinical trial information: NCT04650581 .

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207