Trial reportCancer research communications2025
Continuous versus Standard Palbociclib Treatment and Molecular Profiling of Solid Tissues and Liquid Biopsies in the CCTG MA.38 Trial in Advanced Breast Cancer.
Trial report in Cancer research communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02630693 (Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Two Different Schedules of Palbociclib Plus Second Line Endocrine Therapy in Women With Estrogen Receptor Positive, HER2 Negative Advanced/Metastatic Breast Cancer), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Two Different Schedules of Palbociclib Plus Second Line Endocrine Therapy in Women With Estrogen Receptor Positive, HER2 Negative Advanced/Metastatic Breast Cancer
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The randomized phase II MA.38 trial estimated the relative progression-free survival (PFS) associated with second-line endocrine therapy plus palbociclib administered on a 100 mg continuous daily dosing (CDD) schedule compared with the standard dose schedule (SDS) of 125 mg (days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). A total of 180 patients were allocated 1:1 to protocol therapy. Molecular profiling was performed on the archival tissue and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) at enrollment, 3 months, and 6 months. The primary analysis for PFS demonstrated a similar outcome for the CDD versus SDS treatment strategy: HR = 0.93 (90% confidence interval, 0.66-1.30). Secondary efficacy measures for CDD versus SDS included the following: overall survival, HR = 1.07 (90% confidence interval, 0.67-1.69); response rate, 16.1% versus 18.0% (P = 0.66); median duration of response, 4.2 months (range, 2.8-13.9 months) versus 5.6 months (range, 2.4-13.9 months; P = 0.86); and clinical benefit rate, 53.2% versus 57.3% (P = 0.89). cfDNA profiling of the baseline enrollment sample prior to palbociclib commencement showed low tumor fraction (HR = 2.28; P = 9.9 × 10-6); higher short/long fragment length ratios (HR = 1.19; P = 0.049) and cfDNA variants in FGFR4 (HR = 3.65; P = 0.012) were prognostic and associated with inferior PFS. Variants in TP53 (HR = 2.48; P = 0.006) and ESR1 (HR = 3.42; P = 0.005) detected at 12 weeks on treatment were also associated with poor PFS. CDD palbociclib 100 mg dosing was not associated with improved efficacy compared with the standard intermittent 125 mg dosing schedule. Additionally, we identified prognostic biomarkers in alignment with prior research and demonstrated the value of cfDNA dynamics, including fragment length ratios and tumor fraction as a measure of treatment response. SIGNIFICANCE: A continuous 100 mg dosing schedule of palbociclib was tolerable but not associated with improved efficacy signals versus the standard intermittent 125 mg (days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) schedule. Mutations detected in liquid biopsies and changes in cfDNA dynamics were linked to poor outcomes and may identify patients with treatment-resistant cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.