Randomized Phase II Study of the X-linked Inhibitor of Apoptosis (XIAP) Antisense AEG35156 in Combination With Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of AEG35156 in addition to sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as compared with sorafenib alone. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive AEG35156 (300 mg weekly intravenous infusion) in combination with sorafenib (400 mg twice daily orally) or sorafenib alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Other endpoints include overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR), and safety profile. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were enrolled; of them, 48 were evaluable. At a median follow-up of 16.2 months, the median PFS and OS were 4.0 months (95% CI, 1.2-4.1) and 6.5 months (95% CI, 3.9-11.5) for combination arm, and 2.6 (95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.3-11.2) for sorafenib arm. Patients who had the study treatment interrupted or had dose modifications according to protocol did significantly better, in terms of PFS and OS, than those who had no dose reduction in combination arm and those in sorafenib arm. The ORR based on Choi and RECIST criteria were 16.1% and 9.7% in combination arm, respectively. The ORR was 0 in control arm. One drug-related serious adverse event of hypersensitivity occurred in the combination arm, whereas 2 gastrointestinal serious adverse events in the sorafenib arm. CONCLUSION: AEG35156 in combination with sorafenib showed additional activity in terms of ORR and was well tolerated. The benefit on PFS is moderate but more apparent in the dose-reduced subgroups.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".