REGARD: A phase III, randomized, double-blinded trial of ramucirumab and best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo and BSC in the treatment of metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma following disease progression on first-line platinum- and/or fluoropyrimidine-containing combination therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA5 Background: VEGF and VEGF receptor-2 mediated signaling and angiogenesis may contribute to gastric cancer pathogenesis. Ramucirumab (RAM; IMC-1121B) is a fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting VEGF-receptor 2. We conducted a placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III international trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAM in pts with metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma progressing on first-line platinum- and/or fluoropyrimidine containing combination therapy. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive RAM (8 mg/kg IV) plus BSC or placebo (PL) plus BSC every 2 weeks (wks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Eligible patients had disease progression within 4 months (m) after 1 st -line therapy for metastatic disease or within 6 m after adjuvant therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), 12-wk PFS rate, overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Results: From 10/09 to 01/12, 355 pts were randomized (RAM: 238; PL: 117). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. The Hazard Ratio (HR) for OS was 0.776 (95% CI, 0.603-0.998; p = 0.0473). Median OS was 5.2 m for RAM and 3.8 m for PL. The HR for PFS was 0.483 (95% CI, 0.376-0.620; p < 0.0001). Median PFS was 2.1 m for RAM and 1.3 m for PL. 12-wk PFS was 40% for RAM and 16% for PL. ORR was 3.4% for RAM and 2.6% for PL. Disease control rate was 49% for RAM and 23% for PL (p < 0.0001). Use of anti-cancer therapy post-study: 32% RAM; 39% PL. The most frequent of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were: hypertension (7.2% RAM; 2.6% PL), anemia (6.4% RAM; 7.8% PL), abdominal pain (5.1% RAM; 2.6% PL), ascites (4.2% RAM; 4.3% PL), fatigue (4.2% RAM; 3.5% PL), decreased appetite (3.4% RAM; 3.5% PL) and hyponatremia (3.4% RAM; 0.9% PL). Conclusions: Ramucirumab conferred a statistically significant benefit in OS and PFS compared to PL in metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma following progression on 1st-line therapy with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT00917384.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".