Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Subgroup analysis of patients intolerant of prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFr-TKI) therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
312 Background: In the RECORD-1 phase III study, the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00410124 ) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo (median PFS 4.9 vs 1.9 months) in patients with mRCC whose disease progressed during or within 6 months of VEGFr-TKI (sunitinib and/or sorafenib) therapy. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated the effect of everolimus on PFS in the subgroup of patients who discontinued prior VEGFr-TKI therapy because of adverse events. Methods: In the randomized, double-blind RECORD-1 trial, patients with mRCC who had prior VEGFr-TKI therapy were randomized (2:1) to receive everolimus 10 mg/day (n = 277) or placebo (n = 139) plus best supportive care. Results: Patients who were intolerant of prior VEGFr-TKI therapy included 50 patients (sunitinib = 26; sorafenib = 24) in the everolimus group and 13 patients (sunitinib = 5; sorafenib = 8) in the placebo group. The median PFS in the sunitinib group was 5.13 mo (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.71, not available [NA]) in patients receiving everolimus vs 2.81 mo (95% CI: 1.87, 3.71) in those receiving placebo (HR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07, 1.18; p = 0.033). In the sorafenib subgroup, median PFS was 5.59 mo (95% CI: 3.78, NA) versus 1.91 mo (95% CI: 1.68, 3.48), respectively (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.91; p = 0.012). Conclusions: Everolimus prolonged PFS in a subgroup of patients with mRCC who were intolerant of prior VEGFr-TKI therapy. These results suggest that mTOR inhibition with everolimus was active in patients with mRCC who were intolerant of a previous VEGFr-TKI. [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
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".