MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis of plasma biomarkers potentially associated with antiangiogenic resistance in NCIC CTG/AGITG CO.20: A phase III randomized trial of cetuximab (CET) plus either brivanib alaninate (BRIV) or placebo in patients (pts) with chemotherapy refractory, <i>k-RAS</i> wild-type (WT), metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC).

2012· article· en· W2242669247 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Shapiro, Lillian L. Siu, Christopher J. O’Callaghan, John Zalcberg, Malcolm J. Moore, Timothy Price, Catherine Doyle, John Simes, B. Findlay, M Cronk, Asif Shaikh, Warren Joubert, Benoît Samson, Antonino Bonaventura, Craig Underhill, David Wyld, Ian Walters, Penny Phillips, Dongsheng Tu, Derek J. Jonker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversity of TorontoMoncton HospitalOttawa HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreNiagara Health SystemHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCetuximabBevacizumabInternal medicineClinical endpointOncologyPlaceboRandomized controlled trialPhases of clinical researchColorectal cancerClinical trialCancerChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3572 Notice of Retraction: "Analysis of plasma biomarkers potentially associated with antiangiogenic resistance in NCIC CTG/AGITG CO.20: A phase III randomized trial of cetuximab (CET) plus either brivanib alaninate (BRIV) or placebo in patients (pts) with chemotherapy refractory, k-RAS wild-type (WT), metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC)." Abstract 3572, published in the 2012 Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I, a supplement to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, has been retracted by Jeremy Shapiro, MBBS, and Lillian Siu, MD, on behalf of the NCIC, AGITG, and all authors of the abstract. The authors have been unable to finalize their data presentation due to the complexity of the analysis, and difficulties with the statistical interpretation of the significance of several possible predictive biomarkers. Background: In the CO.20 trial, the addition of BRIV, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial and fibroblast growth factor receptors (VEGFR2,3 and FGFR 1,2,3), to CET, increased objective response rate and progression free survival, but did not significantly increase overall survival. Previous clinical studies demonstrated modulation of circulating angiogenic factors (CAF) in CRC which occur on therapy or upon progression (Kopetz JCO 2010). Methods: CO.20 pts were randomized 1:1 to CET plus either BRIV (Arm A) or placebo (ARM B) in a double-blind design. Pts may have had 1 prior anti-VEGF based therapy, but no prior anti-EGFR therapy. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Baseline pre-treatment plasma samples were analyzed using commercial Multi-Analyte ELISAs to measure CAF, immunologic, and growth factors, with an initial discovery and subsequent validation data set. Results: 750 pts were randomized (376 in Arm A and 374 in Arm B). Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 8.8 months in Arm A and 8.1 months in Arm B, hazard ratio (HR)=0.88; 95%CI=0.74-1.03; p=0.12. In an exploratory subgroup analysis, there is a statistically non-significant trend favoring the effect of brivanib on OS among the 41% pts who received prior anti-VEGF therapy versus those who did not.Baseline plasma samples were collected from 96% of pts, and analysis is ongoing. Results of the largest circulating biomarker analysis will be presented. CAF results will be compared with response and survival data to look for potential patient subgroups that may benefit more from the combination treatment. Conclusions: This large scale analysis will provide insights on the potential use of CAF or CAF profiles as predictive markers in CRC.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.388
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 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies→French-language works237,207→