MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112524831 · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.39.2993

Sunitinib Plus Erlotinib Versus Placebo Plus Erlotinib in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial

2012· article· en· W2112524831 on OpenAlexaff
Giorgio V. Scagliotti, Maciej Krzakowski, Aleksandra Szczęsna, János Strausz, А. Н. Махсон, Martin Reck, Rafal Wierzbicki, István Albert, Michael Thomas, José Elias Miziara, Zsolt Pápai, Nina Karaseva, Sumitra Thongprasert, Joachim von Pawel, Ke Zhang, Paulina Selaru, L. Tye, Richard C. Chao, Ramaswamy Govindan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsLakeridge Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErlotinibMedicineSunitinibInternal medicineLung cancerRashOncologyErlotinib HydrochlorideHazard ratioClinical endpointEpidermal growth factor receptorPhases of clinical researchGastroenterologyCancerChemotherapyClinical trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Sunitinib plus erlotinib may enhance antitumor activity compared with either agent alone in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on the importance of the signaling pathways involved in tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis. This phase III trial investigated overall survival (OS) for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with refractory NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients previously treated with one to two chemotherapy regimens (including one platinum-based regimen) for recurrent NSCLC, and for whom erlotinib was indicated, were randomly assigned (1:1) to sunitinib 37.5 mg/d plus erlotinib 150 mg/d or to placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg/d, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, smoking history, and epidermal growth factor receptor expression. The primary end point was OS. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: In all, 960 patients were randomly assigned, and baseline characteristics were balanced. Median OS was 9.0 months for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus 8.5 months for erlotinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.922; 95% CI, 0.797 to 1.067; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .1388). Median PFS was 3.6 months versus 2.0 months (HR, 0.807; 95% CI, 0.695 to 0.937; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .0023), and ORR was 10.6% versus 6.9% (two-sided stratified log-rank P = .0471), respectively. Treatment-related toxicities of grade 3 or higher, including rash/dermatitis, diarrhea, and asthenia/fatigue were more frequent in the sunitinib plus erlotinib arm. CONCLUSION: In patients with refractory NSCLC, sunitinib plus erlotinib did not improve OS compared with erlotinib alone, but the combination was associated with a statistically significantly longer PFS and greater ORR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicities was greater with combination therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations212
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207