MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045732172 · doi:10.3747/co.v17i4.560

Sunitinib Malate for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumour in Imatinib Mesylate–Resistant Patients: Recommendations and Evidence

2010· article· en· W2045732172 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jawaid Younus, S. Verma, Jacob Franek, N. Coakley

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCancer Care OntarioOttawa HospitalOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSunitinib malateMedicineSunitinibImatinib mesylateGiSTImatinibStromal cellMesylateOncologyCancer researchBioinformaticsInternal medicineCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: Is sunitinib malate-marketed as Sutent (Pfizer Canada, Kirkland, QC)-superior to placebo or other interventions for primary outcomes of interest in adult patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) who have developed resistance or who exhibit intolerance to imatinib mesylate (IM)? BACKGROUND: In patients with resectable disease, surgery is the mainstay of treatment for GIST; in patients with unresectable or metastatic disease, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor IM is the therapy of choice. However, some patients have primary resistance or intolerance to IM, or they progress after optimal exposure (including an escalated dose). Here, we review the evidence for treating IM-resistant GIST with sunitinib malate. METHODS: Studies of sunitinib malate were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library databases, and Web sites of guideline organizations. Outcomes of interest included time to progression, progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. RESULTS: One phase III randomized controlled trial, and one abstract and presentation describing that trial, served as the evidentiary base for this clinical practice guideline. Trial data confidently show that both time to progression and progression-free survival are highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001) in favour of sunitinib malate over placebo. Overall survival was improved with sunitinib malate (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 0.83; p = 0.007; absolute difference in weeks not reported). The most frequent of all adverse effects (experienced in greater proportion by patients on sunitinib malate) were grades 1 and 2 leucopenia (52% vs. 5% with placebo), neutropenia (43% vs. 4%), and thrombocytopenia (36% vs. 4%). Grade 3 hematologic adverse events were also reported more frequently in the sunitinib malate group, including leucopenia (4% vs. 0%), neutropenia (8% vs. 4%), lymphopenia (9% vs. 2%), and thrombocytopenia (4% vs. 0%). Toxicity comparisons did not include p values. The incidence of grades 1-3 fatigue was greater for the sunitinib malate group (34% vs. 22% with placebo). Other grade 3 nonhematologic treatment-related adverse events that occurred more frequently on sunitinib malate included hand-foot syndrome (4% vs. 0%), diarrhea (3% vs. 0%), and hypertension (3% vs. 0%). No grade 4 adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In the target population, sunitinib malate is the recommended option for second-line therapy of metastatic GIST.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207