MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Is it time to change the primary endpoint in clinical trials in recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC)?: Symptom burden and outcomes in patients with platinum resistant/refractory (PRR) and potentially platinum sensitive ROC receiving ≥ 3 lines of chemotherapy (PPS ≥ 3)—The Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) Symptom Benefit Study (SBS).

2015· article· en· W2598367752 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Friedländer, Martin R. Stockler, Rachel O’Connell, Florence Joly, Anne Lanceley, Felix Hilpert, Aikou Okamoto, Eriko Aotani, Sandro Pignata, Paul Donnellan, Amit M. Oza, Elisabeth Åvall‐Lundqvist, Jonathan S. Berek, Katrin Marie Sjoquist, Kim Gillies, Phyllis Butow, Madeleine King

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointInternal medicineChemotherapyAdverse effectClinical trialProgression-free survivalAnorexiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5536 Background: The primary endpoint for clinical trials in PRR/PPS ≥ 3 ROC is progression free survival (PFS) and symptom benefit is not typically measured or reported. The primary aim of GCIG SBS is to validate a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), the MOST (Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns), to assess symptom benefit from palliative chemotherapy (PC). The SBS recruited 949 patients; the secondary aims provide insights into symptom burden, patients’ and clinician’s expectations of treatment and outcomes in a “real world” setting. Methods: Patients with PRR/PPS ≥ 3ROC completed 4 PROMs before each cycle of chemotherapy. They reported expectation of symptom improvement. Clinicians documented the indications for PC, symptoms at baseline, adverse events and estimated the number of cycles patients would receive. Results: Palliation was the major indication for chemotherapy. The mean number of prior regimens was 2.6 (range 1-10). 60% of patients had PRR and 40% had PPS > 3 ROC. At baseline, most patients were symptomatic; 75% rated at least one symptom as moderate (³5 on a 0-10 scale) and 30% rated > 5 symptoms as moderate or worse. The symptoms included pain, fatigue, anorexia, abdominal distension, dyspnea, and constipation. Many had symptoms related to prior chemotherapy (e.g. neuropathy in 28%). Most patients had high expectations of symptom benefit from chemotherapy. 36% of patients received the predicted number of cycles. 25% of patients with PRR-ROC stopped treatment in < 8 weeks mainly due to progression/death. The median number of cycles and median PFS were 4 and 5.6m in PPS≥3ROC, and 3 and 3.7m in PRR ROC respectively. Conclusions: Patients with PRR/PPS ≥ 3ROC reported a number of significant baseline symptoms. They had high expectations of symptom improvement and this should be measured. The results underscore the importance of incorporating PROMs and including symptom benefit as primary endpoints in trials in patients with PRR/PPS ≥ 3 ROC. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12607000603415.

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→