MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338827745 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov206.22

ATCT-22NRG ONCOLOGY/RTOG 1122: PHASE II DOUBLE-BLINDED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY OF BEVACIZUMAB WITH OR WITHOUT AMG 386 IN PATIENTS WITH RECURRENT GLIOBLASTOMA OR GLIOSARCOMA

2015· article· en· W2338827745 on OpenAlexaff
Eudocia Q. Lee, Peixin Zhang, Patrick Y. Wen, Elizabeth R. Gerstner, David A. Reardon, Ken Aldape, John de Groot, Kevin S. Choe, Jeffrey J. Raizer, Lyndon J. Kim, Steven J. Chmura, H. Ian Robins, Jennifer Connelly, James Battiste, John L. Villano, Naveed Wagle, Ryan Merrell, Merideth M Wendland, Minesh P. Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGliosarcomaMedicineBevacizumabGlioblastomaPlaceboDouble blindedOncologyInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchClinical trialChemotherapyPathologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Angiopoietins may play a role in mediating resistance to anti-VEGF therapy in glioblastoma (GBM). AMG 386 is a novel Fc fusion protein that sequesters angiopoietins Ang1 and Ang2. This is a phase II, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial examining the efficacy of bevacizumab (Bev) 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks + AMG 386 15 mg/kg every week compared to Bev + placebo in Bev-naïve patients with recurrent GBM. The initial 6-patient lead-in cohort examined the safety of combining Bev + AMG 386. No more than 1 of the 6 eligible patients in the safety cohort experienced a DLT, and therefore the study proceeded. Patients ≥ 18 yrs with KPS ≥ 70 and GBM or variant in first or second relapse were randomized to Bev + placebo or Bev + AMG 386. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6). Secondary endpoints included safety, radiographic response, progression free survival, and overall survival. 114 eligible patients were needed to yield an 85% statistical power to detect a projected absolute difference of 19% on PFS6 rate (AMG 386 arm vs. placebo arm: 55% vs. 36%) at a one-sided significance level of 0.15, based on a two-sample test on proportion. For the analysis on the primary endpoint, MRI or CT scans obtained at baseline, best response, and progression or 6 months after treatment started (if not progressed within 6 months) were collected for each patient for central radiology review. RANO response criteria were used for all efficacy determinations. Accrual on study was completed in 9/2014. Updated results for all 114 eligible patients will be presented. This project was supported by grants U10CA21661, U10CA180868, U10CA180822, U10CA37422, and UG1CA189867 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Amgen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207