MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase II study of sorafenib (BAY 43–9006) in combination with gemcitabine in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: A PMH phase II consortium trial

2006· article· en· W2375203420 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Welch, Hal W. Hirte, Russell J. Schilder, L. Elit, Carol Townsley, Lisa Tinker, Gregory R. Pond, A. Afinec, James R. Wright, Amit M. Oza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineSorafenibClinical endpointInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchRefractory (planetary science)Ovarian cancerOncologyGastroenterologyCancerClinical trialSurgeryHepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5084 Background: Sorafenib (BAY 43–9006; SOR) is a novel multi-targeted kinase inhibitor that targets the RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor and flt-3. VEGFR is over-expressed in human ovarian tumors and this is associated with poor prognosis. Gemcitabine (GEM) is known to have single-agent activity in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). A recent phase I study of GEM/SOR has demonstrated manageable toxicity and some objective responses in recurrent OC patients. We have designed a phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of this novel combination in patients with recurrent OC. Methods: A two-stage, phase II clinical trial is underway for women with recurrent or refractory OC. Eligible patients may have received up to 2 prior lines of chemotherapy following recurrence, but must be GEM-naive. The treatment consists of SOR, 400mg PO bid continuously, in combination with GEM, IV weekly, 1000 mg/m2. Cycle 1 is an extended cycle of 7 weeks of GEM followed by a 1-week break. GEM is administered weekly for the first 3 weeks of each subsequent 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint is objective response rate, with response evaluated every 8 weeks. Results: 26 patients have been enrolled at 3 centers. 84 cycles have been administered (median 3; range 1–10). Median age was 57 (range: 37–77). 42% were ECOG PS 0 and 58% were PS 1. Of 18 patients evaluable for objective response, 1 patient had a confirmed PR by RECIST criteria and 5 patients had a confirmed PR by CA-125 criteria, yielding a combined RR of 33% in evaluable patients (RR by ITT = 23%). An additional 10 patients had SD. The median time to progression is 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.6-NA). 7 patients are inevaluable for objective response due to the following in cycle 1: withdrawal of consent (3), toxicity (2), and clinical PD (2). 1 patient on-study is yet to have a response evaluation. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities seen in more than 2 patients include: lymphopenia (8), thrombocytopenia (6), hypertension (3), hand-foot syndrome (3), pain (3), neutropenia (3) and hypokalemia (3). Conclusions: The preliminary results show encouraging activity with tolerable toxicity. This trial continues to accrue into a second stage. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207