Placebo‐associated remissions in a multicentre, randomized, double‐blind trial of interferon γ‐1b for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of using an historical maximum spontaneous regression rate (reportedly 0-1.1% in those with lung metastases after nephrectomy) in clinical trials of treatments for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as the eligibility criteria for most studies will select patients with better performance status (and thus excluding those who are unlikely to respond) and more modern staging methods would potentially reduce the number of false-positives. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentre randomized,placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was recently completed in which 197 patients with metastatic RCC from 17 study centres across Canada were randomized to receive placebo or recombinant interferon gamma-1b (60 microg/m2) subcutaneously once every 7 days until disease progression. All tumour responses were validated by an independent response committee unaware of the treatment. RESULTS: The median (95% confidence interval) overall response rate (complete, CR, and partial, PR) for those on interferon-gamma was 4 (1.4-11.5)% and for those on placebo was 6 (2. 5-13.2)% (P = 0.75). In the six patients who were receiving placebo the CR and PR (three each) was considered to represent spontaneous remission. Of these six patients (aged 44-64 years) five had undergone nephrectomy, one a tumour embolization, four had clear cell carcinoma and one an adenocarcinoma, and all had regression of lung and/or lymph node metastases. CONCLUSION: The lack of efficacy of interferon-gamma in this trial underlines the importance of continued research to identify alternative therapeutic agents or combinations of agents in phase II studies. However, the threshold response rate for initiating phase III trials should be increased to 18% in the phase II trials, i.e. three times the response rate on placebo.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".