MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Supportive Efficacy Analyses for the Phase 3 Study of Temsirolimus Versus Investigator’s Choice Therapy for the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma.

2008· article· en· W2590065183 on OpenAlexaff
Jorge Romaguera, Bertrand Coiffier, Michael Crump, Raoul Herbrecht, Gregor Verhoef, Orysia Hanushevsky, Andrew Strahs, Becker Hewes, Anna Berkenblit, Georg Heß

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemsirolimusMedicineHazard ratioMantle cell lymphomaInternal medicineClinical endpointPopulationRefractory (planetary science)Progression-free survivalOncologyRandomized controlled trialLymphomaConfidence intervalChemotherapyDiscovery and development of mTOR inhibitorsBiologyPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Temsirolimus (Torisel®) is a specific inhibitor of the mTOR kinase with antitumor activity in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. In a phase 3, randomized, open-label study, patients treated with temsirolimus 175 mg weekly 3 times followed by 75 mg weekly (175/75-mg) had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those treated with investigator’s choice therapy (p-value temsirolimus: investigator’s choice = 0.0009; hazard ratio = 0.44; 97.5% CI = 0.25, 0.78; Hess et al. J Clin Oncol.2008, 28:abs 8513). Patients treated with temsirolimus 175 mg weekly 3 times followed by 25 mg weekly (175/25-mg) showed a trend towards longer PFS than those treated with investigator’s choice therapy (p-value = 0.0618; hazard ratio = 0.65; 97.5% CI = 0.39, 1.10). Patients treated with temsirolimus 175/75-mg and 175/25-mg had 22% and 6% objective response rates, respectively, compared with a 2% rate for patients treated with investigator’s choice therapy (p=0.0019 and 0.6179). These results were obtained for the intent-to-treat population, which included all randomized patients (n=54 for both temsirolimus groups and the investigator’s choice group). We now report the results of sensitivity and subgroup analyses for the recommended temsirolimus dose, 175/75-mg, compared with those for investigator’s choice therapy. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS, the time from the date of randomization to the earlier date of either progressive disease (PD) or death from any cause, if within 4 months of the last valid tumor assessment (per FDA guidance), censored at that assessment. Progression was assessed by independent review of radiographic and clinical data. Progression-free survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier estimates and an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. Sensitivity analyses for PFS included: evaluable population: those who remained on treatment for at least 8 weeks and did not discontinue early for PD or death, had no major protocol violations, and had at least 1 screening tumor assessment and at least 1 postbaseline independent tumor assessment to which an overall response was assigned all deaths: those patients who had PD or died at any time during the study all deaths + withdrawal from therapy + initiation of anticancer therapy: those patients who had PD, died, or stopped treatment because of withdrawal from therapy or initiation of other anticancer therapy; and all deaths, excluding patients with blastoid histology. The latter analysis was performed because 0 patients in the 175/75-mg group and 4 patients in the investigator’s choice group had blastoid histology. The characteristics of PFS for the 4 sensitivity analyses are shown (Table). In each analysis, PFS was significantly longer for the patients treated with temsirolimus 175/75-mg than for those treated with investigator’s choice therapy, consistent with the PFS results for the intent-to-treat population. Thus, based on several analyses, temsirolimus 175/75-mg benefits patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Additional exploratory analyses will be presented. PFS Analysis Temsirolimus 175/75-mg Investigator’s Choice p-Value Hazard Ratio (95% CI) n Median PFS, Mo n Median PFS, Mo Evaluable population 29 5.2 26 1.9 0.0002 0.29 (0.15, 0.57) All deaths 54 5.2 54 2.0 0.0007 0.46 (0.29, 0.72) All deaths + withdrawal from therapy + initiation of anticancer therapy 54 2.6 54 0.8 <0.0001 0.43 (0.28, 0.65) All deaths, excluding pts with blastoid histology 54 5.2 50 2.1 0.0020 0.48 (0.30, 0.77)

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→