Overall survival with everolimus, sunitinib, and placebo for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e14621 Background: No randomized trial has compared everolimus (EVE) and sunitinib (SUN) for treatment of advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET). This study indirectly compared overall survival (OS) with EVE vs. placebo (PBO), and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) with EVE vs. SUN. Methods: Individual patient data were used from the RADIANT-3 trial of EVE 10 mg/day vs. PBO (cutoff: April 2010); published summary data were used from the A6181111 trial of SUN 37.5 mg/day vs. PBO (cutoff: June 2010). To adjust for cross-trial differences, RADIANT-3 patients were subjected to A6181111 exclusion criteria and weighted to match A6181111 baseline demographics, performance status, time since diagnosis, disease sites, distant metastases and prior therapy. After matching, OS was compared between balanced trial populations for EVE vs. the PBO arm from A6181111 (which had access to SUN after progression or early stopping) and vs. the SUN arm. PFS was also compared. Analyses did not adjust for early stopping of A6181111, which may bias towards longer PFS and OS with SUN vs. PBO. Results: 394 patients from RADIANT-3 (after excluding 15 with worse performance status than allowed in A6181111 and 1 missing baseline data) and all 171 patients in A6181111 were included. RADIANT-3 patients differed from A6181111 patients in baseline performance status, prior use of somatostatin analogues, and prior use of systemic chemotherapy before matching. After matching, all baseline characteristics were well-balanced between trials. EVE was associated with significantly prolonged OS vs. PBO in A6181111 (hazard ratio [HR] for death = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.98, p=0.04), corresponding to a 1-year number needed to treat of 8.3 patients to prevent 1 death. OS and PFS were longer, but not statistically different, with EVE vs. SUN (HR for death = 0.81, 95%CI=0.49-1.31, HR for progression = 0.84, 95% CI=0.46-1.53). Conclusions: After adjusting for cross-trial differences, treatment of advanced pNET with everolimus was associated with significantly prolonged OS compared to placebo. OS and PFS were longer, but not statistically different, with everolimus compared to sunitinib.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".