MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Final clinical results of a randomized phase II international trial of everolimus vs. sunitinib in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN).

2015· article· en· W2500289888 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Armstrong, Samuel Broderick, Tim Eisen, Walter M. Stadler, Robert J. Jones, Jorge A. García, Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Joel Picus, Robert E. Hawkins, John D. Hainsworth, Christian Kollmannsberger, Theodore F. Logan, Igor Puzanov, Lisa Pickering, Christopher W. Ryan, Andrew Protheroe, Christine M. Lusk, Sadie Oberg, Susan Halabi, Daniel J. George

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChromophobe cellEverolimusSunitinibClinical endpointInternal medicineHazard ratioOncologyRenal cell carcinomaProgression-free survivalRandomized controlled trialClear cellUrologyConfidence intervalChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4507 Background: Limited evidence exists to guide therapeutic decisions in patients (pts) with metastatic non-clear cell RCC (NC-RCC). Methods: ASPEN was an international, randomized trial of pts with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified histology; any MSKCC risk group, and no prior systemic therapy. Pts were randomized 1:1 to either everolimus (E) or sunitinib (S) until progression, stratified by histology and risk group. The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS by RECIST 1.1. With an expected 90 PFS events, there was 83% power to detect a 38% decrease in the hazard rate of progression/death assuming a two-sided type I error of 0.20 using a stratified log-rank statistic. Results: Between September 2010 and October 2013,we enrolled108 subjects across 17 sites and 3 countries. Median age was 63, 75/25% male/female, 66% papillary, 15% chromophobe, 19% unclassified; 27/59/14% good/intermediate/poor risk; 57 vs. 51 were randomized to E vs S. Treatment arms were well balanced at baseline. With 87 PFS events, 53 deaths, and 2 pts remaining on study treatment, S improved overall PFS, meeting the primary endpoint. S improved PFS in good/intermediate risk and papillary/unclassified pts, but E improved PFS in poor risk and chromophobe pts (Table). No unexpected safety signals emerged. Conclusions: Sunitinib prolonged rPFS as compared with everolimus in patients with NC-RCC, but resulted in higher rates of severe toxicity. This is the largest trial to date in NC-RCC and the first to demonstrate an mTOR-sensitive subgroup of NC-RCC pts as compared with VEGF inhibition in the front-line setting, including chromophobe and poor risk RCC pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01108445. Endpoint E (n=57) S (N=51) HR (80% CI) S as Reference p-value Median PFS (mo) (80% CI) Papillary Chromophobe Unclassified Risk: Good Intermediate Poor 5.6 5.5-6.0 5.5 11.4 5.6 5.7 4.9 6.1 8.3 5.8-11.1 8.1 5.5 11.5 14.0 6.5 4.0 1.41 (1.03-1.92) 1.52 (1.05-2.20) 0.71 (0.31-1.65) 2.55 (1.01-6.45) 3.07 (1.51-6.28) 1.38 (0.96-2.00) 0.21 (0.06-0.69) 0.16 Median OS (mo, 95% CI) 13.2 31.5 1.17 (0.65-2.14) 0.60 Objective Response Rate (%) CR+ PR % SD % PD % Missing % 5 12 67 16 4 31 61 4 - - >Grade 3 Treatment-Related AEs (%) 47% 65% - -

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207