MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A randomized trial of denosumab (AMG 162) versus intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates (BP) in cancer patients (pts) with bone metastases (BM) on established IV BP and evidence of elevated bone resorption

2006· article· en· W2530836433 on OpenAlexaff
T. Suarez, Karim Fizazi, Yasmin Rahim, Janet M Wilson, Michelle Fan, Allan Lipton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto East General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDenosumabBone resorptionZoledronic acidInternal medicineUrologyClinical endpointCreatinineGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8562 Background: Pts on established (≥ 8 weeks) IV BP who have elevated bone resorption markers, especially urinary N-telopeptide (uNTx), are at increased risk for skeletal related events (Coleman, J Clin Oncol 2005). Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, inhibits osteoclastic bone resorption by binding and neutralizing RANK ligand, a key mediator of osteoclast differentiation and function. Denosumab efficacy and safety were evaluated in a phase 2, randomized, open label, active-controlled study in advanced cancer pts with BM and elevated levels of uNTX despite established IV BP therapy. We report preliminary results from an interim analysis of 49 pts at week 13. Methods: Eligible pts (≥18 yrs old with solid tumor [except lung] or multiple myeloma [MM]; confirmed BM; screening uNTx > 50 nM BCE/mM creatinine [Cr]; on IV BP for ≥ 8 weeks before randomization) are stratified by baseline uNTx (50–100, >100) and tumor type. Pts are randomized to 1 of 3 arms: IV BP every 4 weeks (Q4W) or 180 mg denosumab given subcutaneously Q4W or Q12W. The primary endpoint is the proportion (%) of pts with uNTx < 50 nM BCE/mM Cr at week 13. Enrollment is ongoing (planned N = 135). Results: The mean (range) age of all pts in the analysis (33 denosumab; 16 BP) was 62.5 (39, 81) yrs; 96% had > 2 BM. The median time on prior IV BP (mostly zoledronic acid) was 5.1 months. Tumors included prostate (n = 24), breast (n = 20), other/MM (n = 5). The % of pts with uNTx < 50 nM BCE/mM Cr at week 13 was greater with denosumab (pooled arms) than IV BP: 76% (95% CI: 60.3, 91.2) vs 38% (95% CI: 18.5, 61.4; P = .015 Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel), respectively. No treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported. Commonly reported AEs in the denosumab arms included nausea, peripheral edema, anemia, bone pain, and constipation. At data cutoff, 10 deaths (6/33 denosumab, 4/16 BP) had occurred on-study. Conclusions: These interim data suggest that denosumab normalizes uNTx more frequently than IV BP in pts with elevated uNTx despite 8 weeks of IV BP, across all tumor types. The AE profile of denosumab appeared similar to that of cancer pts undergoing treatment. [Table: see text]

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→