MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of trebananib plus weekly paclitaxel on overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with recurrent ovarian cancer and ascites: Results from the phase III TRINOVA-1 study.

2015· article· en· W2346236028 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley J. Monk, Andrés Poveda, Ignace Vergote, Francesco Raspagliesi, Keiichi Fujiwara, Duk‐Soo Bae, Ana Oaknin, Isabelle Ray‐Coquard, Diane Provencher, Beth Y. Karlan, Catherine Lhommé, Gary Richardson, Dolores Gallardo Rincón, Robert L. Coleman, Arija Brize, Kathy Zhang, Florian D. Vogl, Bruce Allen Bach, Amit M. Oza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAscitesInternal medicineClinical endpointProgression-free survivalGastroenterologyPlaceboPaclitaxelRandomized controlled trialToxicityOvarian cancerOverall survivalCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5503 Background: Trebananib is an antiangiogenic peptibody that inhibits angiopoietin 1 and 2 binding to the Tie2 receptor. TRINOVA-1 showed significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in the trebananib arm (Monk et al, Lancet Oncol 2014;15:799). We evaluated OS, including clinically important subgroups, and postprogression PFS (PFS2). Methods: 919 women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (platinum-free interval < 12 mo) were randomized to paclitaxel (P) 80 mg/m2 IV QW (3 wks on/1 wk off) plus either blinded trebananib 15 mg/kg IV QW (T+P) or placebo (P alone). Treatment continued until progression, toxicity or consent withdrawal. PFS was the primary, intent to treat (ITT) OS a key secondary endpoint. Exploratory PFS2 analysis followed the EMA guidance (EMA/CHMP/27994/2008/Rev.1; 13 Dec 2012). Results: After median follow-up of 17.7 mo and 628 OS events, median OS (ITT) was 19.3 mo with T+P vs 18.3 mo with P alone (HR = 0.95, 95% CI, 0.81–1.11; p = 0.55). Prespecified subgroup analysis of OS also evaluated 295 (32%) pts with ascites at baseline. Characteristics did not differ between pts with and without ascites, and pts with ascites randomized to T+P vs P alone. There was a difference in median OS of 2.2 mo between pts with ascites receiving T+P vs P alone (14.5 vs 12.3 mo; HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.55–0.93; p = 0.011). After on-study progression, 684 (74%) pts received a median of 2 (range, 1–8) additional lines of therapy. Median PFS2 in the T+P arm increased by 1.6 mo (12.5 vs 10.9 mo with P alone; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.98; p = 0.024). Analysis of time to second subsequent therapy confirmed the PFS2 result (median 13.4 vs 11.7 mo with P alone; HR = 0.83, 95% CI, 0.72–0.96; p = 0.012). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was 60% for T+P vs 56% for P alone. T+P was associated with more AE-related treatment discontinuations (22% vs 8%) and localized edema events (any grade, 59% vs 27%). Conclusions: Despite multiple additional lines of therapy, OS was longer with T+P among pts with ascites but not in the ITT population (no decrement). The initially reported PFS benefit was sustained through next subsequent anticancer therapy, translating into longer PFS2. Clinical trial information: NCT01204749.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→