Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 554

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adaptive Randomization of Veliparib–Carboplatin Treatment in Breast Cancer

Open access
Rugo, Hope S., Olopade, Olufunmilayo I., DeMichele, Angela, Yau, Christina, van ’t Veer, Laura J., Buxton, Meredith B., Hogarth, Michael, Hylton, Nola M., Paoloni, Melissa, Perlmutter, Jane, Symmans, W. Fraser, Yee, Douglas, Chien, A. Jo, Wallace, Anne M., Kaplan, Henry G., Boughey, Judy C., Haddad, Tufia C., Albain, Kathy S., Liu, Minetta C., Isaacs, Claudine, Khan, Qamar J., Lang, Julie E., Viscusi, Rebecca K., Pusztai, Lajos, Moulder, Stacy L., Chui, Stephen Y., Kemmer, Kathleen A., Elias, Anthony D., Edmiston, Kirsten K., Euhus, David M., Haley, Barbara B., Nanda, Rita, Northfelt, Donald W., Tripathy, Debasish, Wood, William C., Ewing, Cheryl, Schwab, Richard, Lyandres, Julia, Davis, Sarah E., Hirst, Gillian L., Sanil, Ashish, Berry, Donald A., Esserman, Laura J.·2016·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The genetic and clinical heterogeneity of breast cancer makes the identification of effective therapies challenging. We designed I-SPY 2, a phase 2, multicenter, adaptively randomized trial to screen multiple experimental regimens in combination with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. The goal is to match experimental regimens with responding cancer subtypes. We report results for veliparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with carboplatin. METHODS: In this ongoing trial, women are eligible for participation if they have stage II or III breast cancer with a tumor 2.5 cm or larger in diameter; cancers are categorized into eight biomarker subtypes on the basis of status with regard to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormone receptors, and a 70-gene assay. Patients undergo adaptive randomization within each biomarker subtype to receive regimens that have better performance than the standard therapy. Regimens are evaluated within 10 biomarker signatures (i.e., prospectively defined combinations of biomarker subtypes). Veliparib-carboplatin plus standard therapy was considered for HER2-negative tumors and was therefore evaluated in 3 signatures. The primary end point is pathological complete response. Tumor volume changes measured by magnetic resonance imaging during treatment are used to predict whether a patient will have a pathological complete response. Regimens move on from phase 2 if and when they have a high Bayesian predictive probability of success in a subsequent phase 3 neoadjuvant trial within the biomarker signature in which they performed well. RESULTS: With regard to triple-negative breast cancer, veliparib-carboplatin had an 88% predicted probability of success in a phase 3 trial. A total of 72 patients were randomly assigned to receive veliparib-carboplatin, and 44 patients were concurrently assigned to receive control therapy; at the completion of chemotherapy, the estimated rates of pathological complete response in the triple-negative population were 51% (95% Bayesian probability interval [PI], 36 to 66%) in the veliparib-carboplatin group versus 26% (95% PI, 9 to 43%) in the control group. The toxicity of veliparib-carboplatin was greater than that of the control. CONCLUSIONS: The process used in our trial showed that veliparib-carboplatin added to standard therapy resulted in higher rates of pathological complete response than standard therapy alone specifically in triple-negative breast cancer. (Funded by the QuantumLeap Healthcare Collaborative and others; I-SPY 2 TRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01042379.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1513749

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 554

Metadata

Authors
Rugo, H. S., Olopade, O. I., DeMichele, A., Yau, C., van ’t Veer, L. J., Buxton, M. B., Hogarth, M., Hylton, N. M., Paoloni, M., Perlmutter, J., Symmans, W. F., Yee, D., Chien, A. J., Wallace, A. M., Kaplan, H. G., Boughey, J. C., Haddad, T. C., Albain, K. S., Liu, M. C., Isaacs, C., Khan, Q. J., Lang, J. E., Viscusi, R. K., Pusztai, L., Moulder, S. L., Chui, S. Y., Kemmer, K. A., Elias, A. D., Edmiston, K. K., Euhus, D. M., Haley, B. B., Nanda, R., Northfelt, D. W., Tripathy, D., Wood, W. C., Ewing, C., Schwab, R., Lyandres, J., Davis, S. E., Hirst, G. L., Sanil, A., Berry, D. A., & Esserman, L. J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2016-07-07
Volume
375
Issue
1
Pages
23-34
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2474664935
Cited by
554
References
23
FWCI
35.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Adaptive Randomization of Veliparib–Carboplatin Treatment in Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1513749
The paper
Rugo, H. S., Olopade, O. I., DeMichele, A., Yau, C., van ’t Veer, L. J., Buxton, M. B., Hogarth, M., Hylton, N. M., Paoloni, M., Perlmutter, J., Symmans, W. F., Yee, D., Chien, A. J., Wallace, A. M., Kaplan, H. G., Boughey, J. C., Haddad, T. C., Albain, K. S., Liu, M. C., . . . Esserman, L. J. (2016). Adaptive Randomization of Veliparib–Carboplatin Treatment in Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1513749

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.