Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 454

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adaptive Randomization of Neratinib in Early Breast Cancer

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneity of breast cancer makes identifying effective therapies challenging. The I-SPY 2 trial, a multicenter, adaptive phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk clinical stage II or III breast cancer, evaluated multiple new agents added to standard chemotherapy to assess the effects on rates of pathological complete response (i.e., absence of residual cancer in the breast or lymph nodes at the time of surgery). METHODS: We used adaptive randomization to compare standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor neratinib with control. Eligible women were categorized according to eight biomarker subtypes on the basis of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, hormone-receptor status, and risk according to a 70-gene profile. Neratinib was evaluated against control with regard to 10 biomarker signatures (prospectively defined combinations of subtypes). The primary end point was pathological complete response. Volume changes on serial magnetic resonance imaging were used to assess the likelihood of such a response in each patient. Adaptive assignment to experimental groups within each disease subtype was based on Bayesian probabilities of the superiority of the treatment over control. Enrollment in the experimental group was stopped when the 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a confirmatory phase 3 trial of neoadjuvant therapy reached a prespecified threshold for any biomarker signature ("graduation"). Enrollment was stopped for futility if the probability fell to below 10% for every biomarker signature. RESULTS: Neratinib reached the prespecified efficacy threshold with regard to the HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative signature. Among patients with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative cancer, the mean estimated rate of pathological complete response was 56% (95% Bayesian probability interval [PI], 37 to 73%) among 115 patients in the neratinib group, as compared with 33% among 78 controls (95% PI, 11 to 54%). The final predictive probability of success in phase 3 testing was 79%. CONCLUSIONS: Neratinib added to standard therapy was highly likely to result in higher rates of pathological complete response than standard chemotherapy with trastuzumab among patients with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer. (Funded by 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/nejmoa1513750

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 454

Metadata

Authors
Park, J. W., Liu, M. C., Yee, D., Yau, C., van ’t Veer, L. J., Symmans, W. F., Paoloni, M., Perlmutter, J., Hylton, N. M., Hogarth, M., DeMichele, A., Buxton, M. B., Chien, A. J., Wallace, A. M., Boughey, J. C., Haddad, T. C., Chui, S. Y., Kemmer, K. A., Kaplan, H. G., Isaacs, C., Nanda, R., Tripathy, D., Albain, K. S., Edmiston, K. K., Elias, A. D., Northfelt, D. W., Pusztai, L., Moulder, S. L., Lang, J. E., Viscusi, R. K., Euhus, D. M., Haley, B. B., Khan, Q. J., Wood, W. C., Melisko, M., Schwab, R., Helsten, T., Lyandres, J., Davis, S. E., Hirst, G. L., Sanil, A., Esserman, L. J., & Berry, D. A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2016-07-07
Volume
375
Issue
1
Pages
11-22
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2471493685
Cited by
454
References
2
FWCI
19.41
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 Neratinib in Early Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1513750
The paper
Park, J. W., Liu, M. C., Yee, D., Yau, C., van ’t Veer, L. J., Symmans, W. F., Paoloni, M., Perlmutter, J., Hylton, N. M., Hogarth, M., DeMichele, A., Buxton, M. B., Chien, A. J., Wallace, A. M., Boughey, J. C., Haddad, T. C., Chui, S. Y., Kemmer, K. A., Kaplan, H. G., . . . Berry, D. A. (2016). Adaptive Randomization of Neratinib in Early Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1513750

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.