GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

X

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Assessment of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) cohort by agent in the phase 3 ASCENT study of patients (pts) with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2021
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 39, No. 15_suppl ( 2021-05-20), p. 1077-1077
    Details
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 39, No. 15_suppl ( 2021-05-20), p. 1077-1077
    Abstract: 1077 Background: In pts with pretreated mTNBC, standard-of-care chemotherapy is associated with low objective response rates (ORRs) and short median progression-free survival (PFS). SG is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti–Trop-2 antibody coupled to the cytotoxic SN-38 payload via a proprietary, hydrolyzable linker. SG received accelerated FDA approval for treatment of pts with mTNBC who have received ≥2 prior therapies for metastatic disease. The confirmatory phase 3 ASCENT study (NCT02574455) in pts with relapsed/refractory mTNBC demonstrated a significant survival benefit of SG over TPC (median PFS: 5.6 vs 1.7 mo, HR 0.41, P 〈 0.0001; median overall survival [OS]: 12.1 vs 6.7 mo, HR 0.48, P 〈 0.0001) with a tolerable safety profile. Here we summarize efficacy results for SG vs each TPC agent in ASCENT to examine how each TPC agent performed individually. Methods: Pts had mTNBC refractory to or progressing after ≥2 prior standard chemotherapy regimens. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive SG (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or single-agent TPC (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine). Primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST 1.1 by independent review in brain metastases-negative (BMNeg) pts. Secondary endpoints were ORR per RECIST 1.1, duration of response, OS, and safety. Outcomes for each of the agents in the TPC arm were analyzed and compared with SG. Results: Of 529 pts enrolled, 468 were BMNeg. Among pts in the TPC cohort (n = 233), eribulin was the most commonly chosen chemotherapy (n = 126), followed by vinorelbine (n = 47), capecitabine (n = 31), and gemcitabine (n = 29). Treatment with eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, and gemcitabine resulted in shorter median PFS vs SG (2.1, 1.6, 1.6, and 2.7 vs 5.6 mo, respectively); similar results were observed for median OS (6.9, 5.9, 5.2, and 8.4 vs 12.1 mo), ORR (5%, 4%, 6%, and 3% vs 35%), and clinical benefit rate (CBR; 8%, 6%, 10%, and 14% vs 45%). Key grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with TPC overall vs SG included neutropenia (33% vs 51%), leukopenia (5% vs 10%), fatigue (5% vs 3%), and anemia (5% vs 8%). Key grade ≥3 TRAEs with eribulin vs SG included neutropenia (30% vs 51%), leukopenia (5% vs 10%), fatigue (5% vs 3%), anemia (2% vs 8%), and peripheral neuropathy (2% vs none), respectively. The safety profiles of vinorelbine, capecitabine, and gemcitabine combined were consistent with that of TPC overall and with eribulin. One treatment-related death was reported for the TPC arm (eribulin) and none with SG. Conclusions: The efficacy benefit observed with SG vs TPC in pts with mTNBC was retained when evaluating each TPC chemotherapy agent individually. These results confirm that SG should be considered as a new standard of care in pts with pretreated mTNBC. Clinical trial information: NCT02574455 .
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.1077
    RVK:
    XA 52760
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in patients (pts) with previously treated, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC): Final results from the phase 3 ASCENT study.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2022
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 40, No. 16_suppl ( 2022-06-01), p. 1071-1071
    Details
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 40, No. 16_suppl ( 2022-06-01), p. 1071-1071
    Abstract: 1071 Background: Treatment goals for pts with metastatic breast cancer include extended survival and improved quality of life (QoL). SG is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti–Trop-2 antibody coupled to the cytotoxic SN-38 payload via a proprietary, hydrolyzable linker. SG received FDA approval for pts with mTNBC who received ≥2 prior chemotherapies (at least 1 in the metastatic setting). In the pivotal phase 3 ASCENT study (NCT02574455), SG demonstrated a significant survival benefit over single-agent chemotherapy TPC in the primary analysis population of pts with second line or greater (2L+) mTNBC without known brain metastases at baseline (Bardia A et al. NEJM 2021) and QoL (Loibl S. et al. ESMO 2021). With additional follow up, we present the final data on efficacy, including overall survival (OS), safety, and QoL. Methods: Pts with mTNBC refractory or relapsing after ≥2 prior chemotherapies with at least 1 in the metastatic setting were randomized 1:1 to receive SG (10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or TPC (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST 1.1 by independent review in pts without known brain metastases at baseline. Key secondary endpoints included OS, safety, and health-related QoL. Safety was analyzed in pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug. Results: Of 529 pts enrolled, 468 did not have known brain metastases at baseline (median age: 54 y [range, 27-82]; median prior lines: 4 [range, 2-17] ). As of Feb 25, 2021 (final database lock), SG (n = 235) vs TPC (n = 233) significantly improved median PFS (5.6 vs 1.7 mo; HR: 0.39; P 〈 0.0001) and median OS (12.1 vs 6.7 mo; HR: 0.48; P 〈 0.0001). The OS rate at 24 months was 22.4% (95% CI, 16.8-28.5) in the SG arm and 5.2% (95% CI, 2.5-9.4) in the TPC arm. In the safety population (n = 482), key treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events with SG (n = 258) vs TPC (n = 224) were diarrhea (11% vs 0.4%), neutropenia (52% vs 33%), anemia (8% vs 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs 2%). There was no grade ≥3 neuropathy and 1 case of grade 3 interstitial lung disease reported with SG. No patient experienced a treatment-related death with SG, and there was 1 treatment-related death with TPC due to neutropenic sepsis. Treatment discontinuations due to AEs were ≤3% in both arms. SG arm showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements than the TPC arm in scores for all five primary focus health-related QoL domains. Conclusions: The analysis based on the final database lock of ASCENT confirms the superior survival outcomes of SG over single-agent chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile and improvement in QoL for pts with mTNBC in the 2L+ setting. These findings reinforce SG as an effective treatment option for this pt population. Clinical trial information: NCT02574455.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.1071
    RVK:
    XA 52760
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    AMEERA-5: a randomized, double-blind phase 3 study of amcenestrant plus palbociclib versus letrozole plus palbociclib for previously untreated ER+/HER2– advanced breast cancer
    SAGE Publications ; 2022
    In:  Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology Vol. 14 ( 2022-01), p. 175883592210839-
    Details
    In: Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, SAGE Publications, Vol. 14 ( 2022-01), p. 175883592210839-
    Abstract: For estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer (ABC), the current standard first-line treatment includes an aromatase inhibitor in combination with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor. When resistance occurs, often related to the occurrence of ESR1 mutations, selective estrogen receptor modulators or degraders (SERDs) may be used, alone or in combination regimens. Amcenestrant (SAR439859), an optimized oral SERD, has shown clinical antitumor activity in combination with palbociclib in patients with ER+/HER2– ABC and, as monotherapy, in patients with and without ESR1 mutations. Here, we describe the study design of AMEERA-5, an ongoing, prospective, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multinational study comparing the efficacy and safety of amcenestrant plus palbociclib versus letrozole plus palbociclib in patients with advanced (locoregional recurrent or metastatic) ER+/HER2– breast cancer. Methods: Patients are pre-/postmenopausal women and men with no prior systemic therapy for ABC. The planned enrollment is 1066 patients. Patients are randomized 1:1 to either amcenestrant 200 mg plus palbociclib 125 mg or letrozole 2.5 mg plus palbociclib 125 mg. Amcenestrant, letrozole, and their matching placebos are taken once daily continuously; palbociclib is taken once daily for 21 days, followed by 7 days off-treatment for a 28-day cycle. Treatment continues until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or decision to stop treatment. Pre-/perimenopausal women and men receive goserelin subcutaneously. Randomization is stratified by de novo metastatic disease, menopausal status, and visceral metastases. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. The key secondary endpoint is overall survival; others are safety, pharmacokinetics, and quality of life. Conclusions: AMEERA-5 is evaluating the efficacy and safety of amcenestrant in combination with palbociclib as first-line therapy in pre-/postmenopausal women and men with ER+/HER2– ABC. ClinicalTrials Identifier: NCT04478266.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1758-8359 , 1758-8359
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1177/17588359221083956
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2503443-1
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Assessment of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in patients with prior neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy in the phase 3 ASCENT study in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2021
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 39, No. 15_suppl ( 2021-05-20), p. 1080-1080
    Details
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 39, No. 15_suppl ( 2021-05-20), p. 1080-1080
    Abstract: 1080 Background: mTNBC is a heterogenous disease with few treatment options and poor outcomes. Pts who recur ≤ 12 mo after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy may represent a subset with more aggressive disease. SG is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti–Trop-2 antibody coupled to the cytotoxic SN-38 payload via a proprietary, hydrolyzable linker. SG received accelerated approval for pts with mTNBC who received ≥ 2 prior therapies for metastatic disease; clinical benefit for SG over treatment of physician's choice (TPC) was confirmed in the phase 3 ASCENT study (NCT02574455) for median progression-free survival (PFS; 5.6 vs 1.7 mo), median overall survival (OS; 12.1 vs 6.7 mo), objective response rate (ORR; 35% vs 5%), clinical benefit rate (CBR; 45% vs 9%), and median duration of response (6.3 vs 3.6 mo). This ASCENT subanalysis of pts with mTNBC who recurred ≤ 12 mo after (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and then only received 1 line of therapy in the metastatic setting assessed the benefit of SG in this subgroup vs the overall trial population. Methods: In ASCENT, pts with mTNBC refractory/relapsing after ≥ 2 prior chemotherapies were randomized 1:1 to receive SG (10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or TPC (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine). Per protocol, a pt was eligible after only 1 prior regimen in the metastatic setting if their disease recurred within 12 months of completing (neo)adjuvant therapy. Primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST 1.1 by independent review in brain metastases-negative (BMNeg) pts. Efficacy and safety was assessed in a subset of pts who recurred ≤ 12 mo after (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and then received 1 line of therapy in the metastatic setting. Results: In total, 33 and 32 BMNeg pts with a median age of 49 and 51 yrs received SG and TPC in this subgroup, respectively. In this subgroup, treatment with SG (vs TPC) improved PFS (median 5.7 vs 1.5 mo; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76; P = 0.0049) and OS (median 10.9 vs 4.9 mo; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91; P = 0.0227). We also observed higher ORR (30% vs 3%) and CBR (42% vs 6%) with a median response duration of 6.7 mo with SG vs not calculable with TPC. The efficacy results from this subgroup are similar to those for SG vs TPC in the overall BMNeg population. The safety profile of SG in pts in this subgroup was consistent with prior reports. There were no treatment-related deaths with SG. Conclusions: Pts with mTNBC who recurred ≤ 12 mo after (neo)adjuvant therapy and then had 1 line of prior therapy in the metastatic setting may represent a subset with more aggressive disease. In this subgroup, pts had superior outcomes with SG vs TPC in the second-line metastatic setting, consistent with the benefit seen in the overall BMNeg population. Studies are ongoing (NeoSTAR, NCT04230109; SASCIA, NCT04595565) to evaluate SG as an earlier-line treatment option for TNBC. Clinical trial information: NCT02574455 .
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.1080
    RVK:
    XA 52760
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    AMEERA-5: A randomized, double-blind phase III study of amcenestrant (SAR439859) + palbociclib versus letrozole + palbociclib for previously untreated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2021
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 39, No. 15_suppl ( 2021-05-20), p. TPS1104-TPS1104
    Details
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 39, No. 15_suppl ( 2021-05-20), p. TPS1104-TPS1104
    Abstract: TPS1104 Background: Selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) block estrogen receptor (ER) associated signaling and have created interest for treating patients (pts) with advanced ER+ breast cancer (BC). Fulvestrant is currently the only SERD available for advanced BC but requires intramuscular administration, limiting the applied dose, exposure and receptor engagement. Amcenestrant (SAR439859) is an oral SERD that binds with high affinity to both wild-type and mutant ER, blocking estradiol binding and promoting up to 98% ER degradation in preclinical studies. In the phase I AMEERA-1 study of pretreated pts with ER+/HER2- advanced BC, amcenestrant 150–600 mg once daily (QD) showed a mean ER occupancy of 94% with plasma concentrations 〉 100 ng/mL and a favorable safety profile (Bardia, 2019; data on file). Combination therapy with amcenestrant + palbociclib (palbo) was also evaluated as part of this ongoing phase I study. CDK 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with an aromatase inhibitor (AI), the gold standard for first line treatment for advanced breast cancer, prolong progression free survival (PFS) in pts with no prior treatment for ER+/HER2- advanced BC, but OS benefit has not been shown yet in postmenopausal pts. There remains a clinical need for more effective treatments in this setting. Methods: AMEERA-5 (NCT04478266) is an ongoing, prospective, randomized, double-blind phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of amcenestrant + palbo with that of letrozole + palbo in pts with advanced, locoregional recurrent or metastatic ER+/HER2- BC who have not received prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. The study includes men, pre/peri-menopausal (with goserelin) and post-menopausal women. Pts with progression during or within 12 months of (neo)adjuvant endocrine therapy using any of the following agents are excluded: AI, selective estrogen receptor modulators, CDK4/6i. Pts are randomized 1:1 to either continuous amcenestrant 200 mg or letrozole 2.5 mg QD orally with matching placebos; both combined with palbo 125 mg QD orally (d1–21 every 28-d cycle). Randomization is stratified according to disease type (de novo metastatic vs recurrent disease), the presence of visceral metastasis, and menopausal status. The primary endpoint is investigator assessed progression free survival (PFS) (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints are overall survival, PFS2, objective response rate, duration of response, clinical benefit rate, pharmacokinetics of amcenestrant and palbo, health-related quality of life, time to chemotherapy, and safety. Biomarkers will be measured in paired tumor biopsies and cell free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) over time. Target enrolment = 1066 pts; enrolment as of 1/2021 = 33 pts. Bardia A, et al., J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37 (15 suppl):1054 Clinical trial information: NCT04478266 .
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.TPS1104
    RVK:
    XA 52760
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 6
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Abstract P5-16-01: Assessment of health-related quality of life by clinical response from the phase 3 ASCENT study in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC)
    American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) ; 2022
    In:  Cancer Research Vol. 82, No. 4_Supplement ( 2022-02-15), p. P5-16-01-P5-16-01
    Details
    In: Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 82, No. 4_Supplement ( 2022-02-15), p. P5-16-01-P5-16-01
    Abstract: Background: In ASCENT, patients with mTNBC refractory to or relapsing after ≥2 prior chemotherapies (at least one in the metastatic setting) were randomized 1:1 to receive sacituzumab govitecan (SG) or single-agent treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine). Primary endpoint was progression free survival. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, and safety. Here we examined whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) differed by clinical response. Methods: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQC30) version 3 was used to assess HRQoL at baseline and on day 1 of each treatment cycle. This analysis included intention-to-treat patients who had a completed at least one of the 15 domains/scales at baseline and at least one evaluable assessment at post-baseline visits based on EORTC QLQ-C30. Patients were classified as responders (partial or complete disease response) or non-responders (stable or progressive disease or not evaluable) based on best overall response (RECIST). A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to estimate leastsquare (LS) mean EORTC QLQC30 score changes from baseline using all HRQoL data assessed during Cycle 2 Day 1 (C2D1) to C6D1 (where n was ≥25 in both treatment arms) for responders and nonresponders within each treatment group. Results: Mean QLQ-C30 subscale scores at baseline were similar between treatment arms. The analysis included 236 patients in the SG arm of the full trial population, of whom 82 (35%) were clinical responders; and 183 in the TPC arm, of whom 11 (6%) were clinical responders. Due to the small number of TPC responders, inferential statistical testing to compare between-group difference was not performed.Irrespective of their clinical response status, patients treated with SG showed more favorable LS mean changes than patients who received TPC in all EORTC QLQ-C30 domains, except for nausea/vomiting and diarrhea (Table). Overall, LS mean changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in SG nonresponders were less favorable than those in SG responders, but more favorable than those in TPC responders and TPC nonresponders for most EORTC QLQ-C30 domains. Conclusions: The analysis demonstrates that regardless of response status, SG responders and non-responders showed a better trend in HRQoL changes than TPC. Patients who achieved a tumor response to SG may benefit most in HRQoL. Although patients treated with SG reported higher rates of diarrhea, this did not generate a negative impact on their overall quality of life or functioning. Table: Mixed effects model least-square mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score changes from baselineLeast-square mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval)SG responders(N=82)SG nonresponders(N=154)TPC responders(N=11)TPC non-responders(N=172)Global health status/QoL2.46 (-1.52, 6.43)-0.57 (-3.68, 2.54)-1.64 (-10.22, 6.95)-2.29 (-5.63, 1.05)FunctioningPhysical2.93 (-0.92, 6.79)0.22 (-2.71, 3.15)-3.47 (-11.93, 4.99)-3.75 (-6.87, -0.63)Role-0.35 (-5.74, 5.04)-3.23 (-7.45, 0.99)-8.40 (-19.93, 3.13)-7.33 (-11.88, -2.78)Emotional6.20 (2.23, 10.18)1.97 (-1.12, 5.06)4.87 (-3.70, 13.44)0.08 (-3.24, 3.40)Cognitive0.90 (-2.99, 4.79)-2.25 (-5.26, 0.76)-4.46 (-12.87, 3.95)-1.26 (-4.49, 1.98)Social2.06 (-3.50, 7.61)-3.35 (-7.65, 0.95)-5.79 (-18.29, 6.72)-4.36 (-8.99, 0.27)SymptomsFatigue0.90 (-3.49, 5.28)2.84 (-0.60, 6.29)4.15 (-5.34, 13.65)6.65 (2.93, 10.38)Nausea/vomiting4.68 (1.42, 7.95)4.03 (1.42, 6.64)1.38 (-5.53, 8.29)2.62 (-0.21, 5.45)Pain-11.40 (-16.43, -6.36)-8.57 (-12.48, -4.66)-11.99 (-22.85, -1.13)-0.24 (-4.47, 3.99)Dyspnea-7.88 (-13.09, -2.67)-1.90 (-5.93, 2.13)1.97 (-9.33, 13.27)3.86 (-0.47, 8.18)Insomnia-6.12 (-11.99, -0.26)-3.51 (-8.04, 1.02)4.83 (-7.85, 17.51)-0.98 (-5.86, 3.90)Appetite loss0.22 (-5.25, 5.70)5.45 (1.15, 9.75)8.67 (-3.05, 20.40)4.60 (-0.05, 9.26)Constipation0.93 (-4.57, 6.43)2.20 (-2.09, 6.49)3.87 (-7.96, 15.70)3.52 (-1.12, 8.16)Diarrhea16.03 (10.32, 21.74)13.65 (9.19, 18.11)2.46 (-9.88, 14.80)-1.53 (-6.34, 3.29)Financial difficulties-3.57 (-8.54, 1.39)-2.44 (-6.21, 1.34)-4.41 (-15.27, 6.46)0.61 (-3.42, 4.64)A higher score for a functional domain represents a higher or healthier level of functioning; a higher score for the global health status/QoL represents a higher overall HRQoL; but a higher score for a symptom domain represents a higher level of symptomatology or problems Citation Format: Sibylle Loibl, Sara M. Tolaney, Kevin Punie, Mafalda Oliveira, Hope S. Rugo, Aditya Bardia, Sara A. Hurvitz, Adam Brufsky, Kevin M Kalinsky, Javier Cortes, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Lisa A. Carey, Luca Gianni, Véronique Diéras, Ling Shi, Mahdi Gharaibeh, Luciana Preger, Lee Moore, See Phan, Martine Piccart. Assessment of health-related quality of life by clinical response from the phase 3 ASCENT study in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-16-01.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0008-5472 , 1538-7445
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS21-P5-16-01
    RVK:
    XA 36000
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036785-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1432-1
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 410466-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...