OS8 - 150 Encouraging Survival with Toca 511 and Toca FC Compared to External Lomustine Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) has an unmet need for effective therapies. Toca 511 (vocimagene amiretrorepvec), a retroviral replicating vector with the transgene cytosine deaminase, selectively infects, persists and spreads in tumor. Subsequent oral administration of 5-fluorocytosine (Toca FC) produces 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) within infected cells. 5-FU kills cancer cells and myeloid derived suppressor cells, inducing robust antitumor immune responses in animal models. In 2 Phase 1 studies, Toca 511 was administered into the cavity wall after surgical resection (NCT01470794) or intratumoral injection by biopsy needle (NCT01156584). To provide context to the results observed, subjects were compared to an external lomustine treated control (Courtesy Denovo Biopharma; Wick 2010). Treatment with Toca 511/Toca FC from 2 Phase I studies showed significant improvement in OS HR equals to 0.48, p less than 0.001, with similar effect in the surgical resection (OS HR 0.45, p equals to 0.003) and intratumoral injection (OS HR 0.56, p equals to 0.060). Fewer related greater or equal to Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were reported for Toca 511/Toca FC (2.5 percent) vs. lomustine (36.9 percent). There was a virtual absence of hematologic toxicity for Toca 511/Toca FC vs. lomustine (Grade greater or equal to 3 thrombocytopenia 23.8 percent). Discontinuations for AEs occurred in 0percent for Toca 511/Toca FC vs. 4.8 percent for lomustine. Toca 511 is surgically delivered and treatment-emergent AEs regardless of attribution included incision site pain (20 percent), procedural pain (12.5 percent), and wound infection (5 percent) vs. 0percent, 1.2 percent, 1.2 percent respectively for lomustine. Toca 511/Toca FC significantly improved survival and safety relative to lomustine. A Phase 2/3 trial has launched (NCT02414165).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".