4.8 Article

Subtyping-based platform guides precision medicine for heavily pretreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: The FUTURE phase II umbrella clinical trial

期刊

CELL RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 389-402

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41422-023-00795-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Triple-negative breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with limited treatment options. The results of the FUTURE trial show that subtype-based therapy may improve outcomes in metastatic TNBC patients, with objective responses achieved in nearly 30% of patients. This study also provides insights into the association between genomic and clinicopathological parameters and treatment efficacy.
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous disease and lacks effective treatment. Our previous study classified TNBCs into four subtypes with putative therapeutic targets. Here, we report the final results of FUTURE, a phase II umbrella trial designed to explore whether the subtyping-based strategy may improve the outcomes in metastatic TNBC patients. A total of 141 patients with a median of three previous lines of therapies in the metastatic setting were enrolled in seven parallel arms. Confirmed objective responses were achieved in 42 patients (29.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4-38.1). The median values of progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.4 (95% CI: 2.7-4.2) and 10.7 (95% CI: 9.1-12.3) months, respectively. Given Bayesian predictive probability, efficacy boundaries were achieved in four arms. Furthermore, integrated genomic and clinicopathological profiling illustrated associations of clinical and genomic parameters with treatment efficacy, and the efficacy of novel antibody-drug conjugates was explored in preclinical TNBC models of subtypes for which treatment was futile. In general, the FUTURE strategy recruits patients efficiently and provides promising efficacy with manageable toxicities, outlining a direction for further clinical exploration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据