Capivasertib plus fulvestrant in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: phase 3 CAPItello-291 study extended Chinese cohort
Abstract
In the global CAPItello-291 randomized phase 3 study (NCT04305496) in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and progression during/after aromatase inhibitor treatment, capivasertib–fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the overall population and patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors versus placebo–fulvestrant. We assessed efficacy and safety of capivasertib–fulvestrant in a prespecified exploratory analysis of a Chinese cohort (n = 24) and extended study with the same protocol (n = 110). Clinically meaningful PFS benefit for capivasertib–fulvestrant was observed in the overall population (median PFS: 6.9 [capivasertib–fulvestrant] versus 2.8 [placebo–fulvestrant] months; hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.34–0.76), patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors (n = 46; 5.7 versus 1.9 months; hazard ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.19–0.85) and PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-non-altered tumors (patients with confirmed next-generation sequencing results [n = 68]; 9.2 versus 2.7 months; hazard ratio 0.38; 95% CI 0.21–0.68). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) with capivasertib–fulvestrant were diarrhea (60.6% versus 11.3% with placebo–fulvestrant) and hyperglycemia (57.7% versus 17.7%). AEs leading to capivasertib–fulvestrant discontinuation were reported in 11.3% of patients versus 3.2% for placebo–fulvestrant. The benefit-risk profile of capivasertib–fulvestrant in the Chinese cohort was favorable; further exploration in…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 110 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.