Phase III randomized study of sorafenib plus doxorubicin versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): CALGB 80802 (Alliance).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
192 Background: An exploratory analysis of a randomized phase II study in HCC comparing doxorubicin (D) alone to doxorubicin plus sorafenib (D+S) showed a significant improvement in overall survival favoring D+S (JAMA, 2011). The results appeared promising compared to the historic outcomes seen in the pivotal sorafenib (S) trials. CALGB 80802 was designed to determine if D+S improved survival compared to S alone. Methods: Patients with histologically proven advanced HCC, no prior systemic therapy and Child-Pugh A were randomized to receive D 60 mg/m2 every 21 days plus S 400 mg PO twice daily (D+S) or S alone. For bilirubin ≥ 1.3x normal, D and S doses were halved. D was maxed out at 360 mg/m2. The study was stratified by extent of disease (locally advanced; metastatic), the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); and secondary endpoint progression-free survival (PFS). The final analysis was to occur when 364 events were observed among 480 total patients, with 90% power to detect a 37% increase in median OS (10.7 to 14.7 months; 1-sided α = 0.05). Results: The Alliance DSMB halted the study after accrual of 346 patients (173 on each of D+S and S) when a futility boundary was crossed at a planned interim analysis. With 107 events in each arm, median OS was 9.3 months (95%CI 7.1-12.9) for D+S, and 10.5 months (95% CI 7.4-14.3) for S with a hazard ratio (HR) 1.06 (95% CI 0.8-1.4) for D+S vs. S. Median PFS was 3.6 (95% CI 2.8-4.6) and 3.2 months (95% CI 2.3-4.1), respectively (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.72-1.2). There were 38 deaths on treatment: 18 on D+S and 20 on S. Among these 8 [sepsis (1), dysphagia (1), pneumonia (1), cardiac (2), hepatic failure (2), and not otherwise specified (1)] on D+S, and 3 [fatigue (1), hepatic failure (1), and a secondary malignancy (1)] on S, were at least possibly related to treatment. A maximum grade 3 or 4 only hematologic adverse events (AE) occurred in 37.8% of patients on D+S and 8.1% of patients on S. Non-hematologic AEs were comparable, in 63.6% and 61.5% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of D to S resulted in higher toxicity and did not improve OS or PFS. The S median OS of about 10 months is consistent with previous reports. NCI Grant U10CA180821 Clinical trial information: NCT01015833.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".