MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bevacizumab (Bev) with or without erlotinib as maintenance therapy, in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Exploratory analysis according to KRAS status in the gercor DREAM phase III trial.

2013· article· en· W2591049751 on OpenAlexaff
Benoît Samson, Christophe Tournigand, Werner Scheithauer, Gérard Lledo, F. Viret, Thierry André, Jean François Ramée, N. Tubiana-Mathieu, Jérôme Dauba, Olivier Dupuis, Yves Rinaldi, May Mabro, Nathalie Aucoin, Ahmed Khalil, Jean Latreille, Christophe Louvet, David Brusquant, Franck Bonnetain, Benoist Chibaudel, Aimery de Gramont

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le Moyne
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBevacizumabErlotinibKRASInternal medicinePopulationFOLFOXOncologyColorectal cancerFOLFIRIGastroenterologyCancerChemotherapyOxaliplatinEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

448 Background: In the GERCOR-DREAM trial, maintenance therapy (MT) with bev + EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib (E) after a first-line Bev-based induction therapy (IT) in pts with mCRC significantly improved PFS compared with bev alone. Here we explore the influence of KRAS status on erlotinib efficacy. Methods: Pts with previously untreated and unresectable mCRC were eligible. After a Bev-based IT with FOLFOX or XELOX or FOLFIRI, pts without disease progression were randomized to MT between Bev alone (Bev 7.5 mg/kg q3w; arm A) or Bev+E (Bev 7.5 mg/kg q3w, E 150 mg/day continuously; arm B). KRAS determination was established by local assessment in each center. Results: Among the 452 randomized patients, KRAS status was available in 403 pts (89%): 234 pts (58%) KRAS wt and 169 pts (42%) KRAS mut. Clinical characteristics were similar between both populations. For the whole population of randomized patients (n=452), median PFS from inclusion were 9.33m and 10.55m in arm A and B, respectively (HR=0.76 [0.61-0.94], p=0.011). For KRAS wt population, median PFS from inclusion was 9.66 m and 10.94 m in arm A and B, respectively (HR=0.80 [0.59-1.08], p=0.141). For KRAS mut population, median PFS from inclusion was 9.79 m and 9.79 m in arm A and B, respectively (HR=0.86 [0.61-1.22], p=0.393). In KRAS wt pts treated with erlotinib, cutaneous toxicity was predictive of PFS: mPFS was 9.66m in pts with grade 0 (n=101) and 10.91m in pts with grade ≥1 (n=114) (HR=0.69 [0.51-0.95], p=0.0186). Conclusions: The addition of erlotinib to bevacizumab as maintenance treatment in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer significantly improves progression-free survival from inclusion. However, in both wt and mut KRAS pts, difference was not statistically significant. Unlike anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, the addition of erlotinib to bevacizumab does not appear to be antagonist in KRAS mutant patients. Clinical trial information: NCT00265824.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207