MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (ARCCS) expanded access trial in North America: Safety and efficacy

2007· article· en· W2241239684 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. J. Knox, Robert A. Figlin, Walter M. Stadler, David F. McDermott, N. Gabrail, Wilson H. Miller, John D. Hainsworth, Chris Ryan, Lisa Cupit, Ronald M. Bukowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSorafenibSunitinibRenal cell carcinomaInternal medicineExpanded accessChromophobe cellAdverse effectSurgeryClinical trialUrologyOncologyClear cellHepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5011 Background: A prior phase III trial (TARGETs) demonstrated that sorafenib (SOR) doubled median progression-free survival versus placebo in previously treated clear cell renal cell cancer (RCC) patients (pts). The ARCCS trial made SOR available to a broader range of RCC pts through an expanded access program. Methods: This open-label, nonrandomized trial enrolled pts with advanced RCC not eligible for, or without access to, other SOR clinical trials; ECOG PS 0–2 with waivers granted for pts with ECOG PS 3–4; age =15 yrs; and adequate prior treatment of brain metastases. Major exclusion criteria included treatment <4 wks prior, life expectancy <2 mos, uncontrolled hypertension, and severe renal impairment requiring dialysis. Objectives were to analyze the safety and efficacy (response by RECIST) of 400 mg bid SOR in a community-based setting. Enrollment ceased on 12/20/05 when SOR became commercially available in the US, and those with no prior therapy or non-clear cell RCC continued in an extension protocol. Enrollment completed in Canada in 8/06. Results: A total of 2488 pts were valid for safety: 69% male with median age 63 yrs and most (83%) had prior nephrectomy; histologies included 78% clear-cell, 7% papillary, 1% chromophobe, and <1% collecting duct and oncocytoma. Median time from diagnosis for all pts was 1.4 yrs (range <1–34). Of those pts receiving prior therapy (n=1249), treatments included interferon alfa (54%), interleukin 2 (43%), bevacizumab (23%), thalidomide (12%), and sunitinib (2%). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurring in > 2% pts were hand- foot skin reaction 7.2%, fatigue 5.3%, hypertension 4.4%, rash/desquamation 4%, dehydration and dyspnea 2.7%, and diarrhea 2.5%. Efficacy assessment, mainly PFS, was limited by the short median time (14 wks) on study due to many pts enrolling during the last 2 months of the study. Of 1,850 pts evaluable for response, 17.5% had unconfirmed PR. One (0.1%), 67 (3.6%), 1479 (79.9%) and 303 (16.4%) had CR, PR, SD, and PD, respectively. Conclusions: ARCCS pts were representative of the broader range of RCC pts in the community including those excluded from previous SOR trials. Toxicity and response rates were similar to those reported previously, supporting the generalizability of the phase III trial data. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations46
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207