MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of number of lines of prior chemotherapy in patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) receiving salvage therapy.

2014· article· en· W2591364804 on OpenAlexaff
Guru Sonpavde, Joaquim Bellmunt, Jonathan E. Rosenberg, Dean F. Bajorin, Ashley Marie Regazzi, Toni K. Choueiri, Angela Qu, Günter Niegisch, Peter Albers, Andrea Necchi, Giuseppe Di Lorenzo, Ronan Fougeray, Yu‐Ning Wong, Srikala S. Sridhar, Yoo‐Joung Ko, Matthew I. Milowsky, Matt D. Galsky, Gregory R. Pond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyDocetaxelChemotherapyPazopanibSunitinibPaclitaxelUrologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

353 Background: The prognostic impact of number of lines of prior chemotherapy and prior perioperative chemotherapy on survival results in salvage trials for advanced UC is unknown. Methods: We pooled 10 prospective phase II trials of salvage therapy for advanced UC with data on the number of prior lines of therapy in addition to known prognostic factors: TFPC (time from prior chemotherapy), Hb (hemoglobin), PS (performance status), and LM (liver metastasis) status. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association of number of prior lines with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Trial was included as a stratification factor. Sub-analysis examined the impact of prior perioperative chemotherapy. Results: Of 731 pts, data for all factors was available for 711. The overall median PFS and OS were 2.7 and 6.8 months, respectively. Trials evaluated vinflunine (N=151), docetaxel +/- vandetanib (N=147), paclitaxel-gemcitabine (N=83), sunitinib (N=77), nab-paclitaxel (N=48), volasertib (N=46), everolimus (N=45), pazopanib (N=43), cetuximab +/-paclitaxel (N=39) and paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide (N=32). The number of prior lines of therapy were 1 in 559 (78.6%), 2 in 111 (15.6%), 3 in 29 (4.1%), 4 in 10 (1.4%) and 5 in 2 (0.3%) pts. Prior perioperative chemotherapy was given to 277 (39.1%) and chemotherapy for metastatic disease to 454 (64.1%) pts. While TFPC, Hb, PS and LM were significantly associated with OS and PFS on multivariate analyses, the number of prior lines was not associated with OS (HR 0.99 [95% CI: 0.86-1.14]) or PFS (0.92 [0.80-1.05]). Prior peri-operative chemotherapy was a favorable factor for both OS and PFS on univariable but not multivariable analysis. Conclusions: The number of prior lines of therapy and prior perioperative chemotherapy were not independently prognostic for OS or PFS in UC pts receiving salvage therapy, although the data are limited by few pts with >2 prior regimens. We infer that interpretation of OS and PFS results in salvage therapy trials will not be affected by inclusion of pts with ≥ 2 prior regimens including perioperative and/or metastatic disease treatment. These data need external validation.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→