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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Simard, S., & Savard, J. (2009) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-008-0444-y · Cited by 608
Gandhi, L., Bahleda, R., Tolaney, S. M., Kwak, E. L., Cleary, J. M., Pandya, S. S., Hollebecque, A., Abbas, R., Ananthakrishnan, R., Berkenblit, A., et al. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2012.47.2787 · Cited by 198
Cited by
Curigliano, G., Burstein, H. J., Winer, E. P., Gnant, M., Dubsky, P., Loibl, S., Colleoni, M., Regan, M. M., Piccart-Gebhart, M., Senn, H.-J., et al. (2017) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx308 · Cited by 1,205
Targeting the PI3K pathway in cancer: are we making headway?
Janku, F., Yap, T. A., & Meric-Bernstam, F. (2018) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2018.28 · Cited by 1,033
Master Protocols to Study Multiple Therapies, Multiple Diseases, or Both
Woodcock, J., & LaVange, L. M. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1510062 · Cited by 1,020
Nanda, R., Liu, M. C., Yau, C., Shatsky, R., Pusztai, L., Wallace, A., Chien, A. J., Forero-Torres, A., Ellis, E., Han, H., et al. (2020) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6650 · Cited by 710
Self-citationSaura, C., Oliveira, M., Feng, Y.-H., Dai, M.-S., Chen, S.-W., Hurvitz, S. A., Kim, S.-B., Moy, B., Delaloge, S., Gradishar, W., et al. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.20.00147 · Cited by 604
Self-citation
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
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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.