MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase II multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of sunitinib given on an individualized schedule as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell cancer.

2013· article· en· W2597425187 on OpenAlexaffabout
Georg A. Bjarnason, Naveen S. Basappa, Jennifer J. Knox, Christian Kollmannsberger, M. Neil Reaume, Paweł Zalewski, Robyn Jane Macfarlane, Mary J. MacKenzie, Sebastién J. Hotte, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Denis Soulières, J. A. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsBaker Hughes (Canada)Cancer Care OntarioQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalOzmosis Research (Canada)Lakeridge HealthOttawa HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of TorontoJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineToxicitySunitinibInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchUrologyOncologyCancerGastroenterologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS4594 Background: Retrospective reviews have shown poorer than expected response rate (RR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in Sunitinib treated (Rx) Renal Cell Cancer (RCC) patients (pts) who experience minimal toxicity. This study is based on an individualized (individ) Rx strategy where dose/schedule modifications (DSM) were done to maximize dose and minimize time off Rx in 172 pts (Bjarnason ASCO-GU 2011). Pts started on 50mg 28 days (d) on/14d off. DSM were done to keep toxicity (fatigue, skin, GI, hematology) at ≤ grade-2. DSM-1 was 50mg 14d/7d with individ increases in d on Rx based on toxicity. DSM-2 was 50mg 7d/7d with individ increases in d on Rx. DSM-3 was 37.5mg continuously with individ 7d breaks. DSM-4 was 25mg continuously with individ 7d breaks.In pts with clear cell histology PFS was inferior (5.8 mo) on the standard 50mg 28d/14d schedule vs. DSM schedules (>14 months, p=0.0002) These data, confirmed in 185 pts at MD Anderson (Jonasch KCA 2012), suggest that pts with minimal toxicity after 28d on Rx may benefit from dose escalation. Methods: A prospective phase II study has opened in 11 centers in Canada. DSM are done as described above. Pts with minimal toxicity after 28d are escalated to 62.5 mg and then 75 mg on a 14d /7d schedule. We expect to dose escalate 25% of pts and maintain another 40% of pts on a 50 mg dose that would otherwise have been dose reduced. The primary objective is the PFS associated with this strategy. Secondary objectives include dose intensity, RR, OS, toxicity, and quality of life. Samples for Sunitinib pharmacokinetics are obtained during the first course and again when the ideal sunitinib schedule has been established. Samples for biomarker and DNA correlative studies are collected. Based on the standard arm of the EFFECT trial (identical eligibility criteria), we assume a median PFS of 8.5 months in pts Rx using standard dosing. We expect pts treated with the indiv dosing will have a median PFS of 14 months. With alpha=0.05, a two-sided, single-arm non-parametric survival test would have over 90% power to detect this difference with a total of 110 pts on study. Study enrollment began in July 2012 with 25 pts currently on study. Clinical trial information: NCT01499121.

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)0.004
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→