MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A randomized double-blind phase III trial comparing vintafolide plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) versus PLD plus placebo in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROCEED).

2013· article· en· W2598922717 on OpenAlexaff
R. Wendel Naumann, Lucy Gilbert, Anthonette M. Miller, Hong Ma, Sharad Ghamande, Ignace Vergote

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerPlaceboInternal medicineChemotherapyGastroenterologyCancerOncologyPerformance statusPhases of clinical researchUrologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS5613 Background: Folate receptor (FR) is expressed on the majority of epithelial ovarian cancers and FR expression appears to be a negative prognostic factor in this setting. Vintafolide (EC145) is a folate-conjugate designed to selectively deliver desacetylvinblastine monohydrazide (DAVLBH) to FR-expressing cells. 99mTc-Etarfolatide (EC20) is a technetium-labeled folate that identifies FR-expressing tumors. In a phase 2 study comparing vintafolide + PLD with PLD alone, the combination demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant delay in PFS (5.0 months) compared with PLD alone (2.7 months) in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (Naumann et al, ASCO 2011). Data also indicated that 99mTc-etarfolatide may have utility for selecting patients most likely to benefit from vintafolide therapy. Methods: This is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of PLD ± vintafolide therapy compared in patients with primary or secondary platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (NCT01170650). Key eligibility criteria include: ≥18 years, pathology-confirmed epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma, prior platinum-based chemotherapy, a RECIST v1.1 measureable lesion, and ECOG performance status 0 or 1. At baseline, patients undergo 99mTc-Etarfolatide imaging to identify FR-positive lesions and are subsequently randomized to the vintafolide ± PLD. PLD (50 mg/m2) adjusted for Ideal Body weight is administered on day 1 of a 4-week cycle and treatment continues until the maximum allowable cumulative dose (550 mg/m2) is reached or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Vintafolide (2.5 mg) or placebo is administered on days 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, and 19 of a 4-week cycle and treatment can continue for up to 20 cycles or until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The primary objective is to assess PFS based on investigator assessment (RECIST v1.1) in FR positive patients. Secondary objectives include OS, safety/tolerability, overall response rate, and disease control rate. Enrollment to the study is currently ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT01170650.

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)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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