MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, controlled study of cabozantinib (XL184) versus placebo in subjects with hepatocellular carcinoma who have received prior sorafenib (CELESTIAL; NCT01908426).

2015· article· en· W2520616996 on OpenAlexaff
Ghassan K. Abou‐Alfa, Ann‐Lii Cheng, Tim Meyer, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, Masafumi Ikeda, Hoo G. Chun, Junji Furuse, Jennifer J. Knox, Takuji Okusaka, Jerry Ping, Anne E. Borgman-Hagey, Robin Kate Kelley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCabozantinibMedicineSorafenibHepatocellular carcinomaInternal medicineClinical endpointOncologyTolerabilityPlaceboResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsDiscontinuationRandomized controlled trialCancerAdverse effectPhases of clinical researchGastroenterologyClinical trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS496 Background: Currently, there are no approved systemic therapies for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who fail sorafenib. Cabozantinib is an oral receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with activity against tyrosine kinases including MET, RET and VEGFRs. MET and VEGFR signaling have been implicated in tumor neo-angiogenesis and invasion. MET is overexpressed in HCC compared with non-tumor liver tissue, with higher MET expression linked to poor prognosis. Cabozantinib prolonged survival in a MET-driven transgenic mouse model of HCC, and has demonstrated clinical activity in multiple solid tumor types, including 41 subjects with advanced HCC treated in a phase 2 randomized discontinuation study. Methods: This phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluates the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib compared with placebo in subjects with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib and have progressed following 1-2 prior systemic treatments for HCC. Subjects must be ≥ 18 year old, have Child-Pugh Score of A and ECOG PS ≤ 1. Subjects are randomized 2:1 to receive either cabozantinib or placebo. Stratification factors are etiology of disease, geographic region and the presence of extrahepatic spread of disease and/or macrovascular invasion. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression-free survival and objective response rate by RECIST 1.1. Additional endpoints include safety, tolerability, circulating tumor cells, serum bone markers and plasma biomarkers, effects on bony disease assessed by bone scan and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the EuroQol Health questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Enrollment was initiated in September 2013. Target recruitment is 760 subjects. A total of 621 events planned with 2 interim analyses (at 311 and 466 events) would provide 90% power to detect a 31.6% increase in OS (HR=0.76). Clinical trial information: NCT01908426.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.281
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207