Updated results from a phase III trial of sunitinib versus placebo in patients with progressive, unresectable, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (NET).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4118 Background: In a double-blind phase III trial, sunitinib (Sutent; SU) improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (PBO; 11.4 vs 5.5 mos; HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26–0.66; P=0.0001) and was well tolerated in patients (pts) with unresectable, well-differentiated pancreatic NET that had progressed ≤12 mos before baseline. Initial overall survival (OS) revealed a benefit for SU vs PBO, although median OS had not been reached. We now report PFS assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) and updated OS. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to SU 37.5 mg or PBO on a continuous daily dosing schedule, each with best supportive care. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS; OS was a secondary endpoint to be evaluated every 2 yrs for 5 yrs, or until 95% of pts had died. Additionally, BICR was performed retrospectively; baseline and on-study CT/MRI scans were evaluated by a 2-reader, 2-time-point lock, followed by a sequential locked-read, batch-mode paradigm by blinded, third-party radiologists. Results: 171 pts were randomized (SU, n=86; PBO, n=85) from Jun 2007 to Apr 2009. The trial ended when an independent data monitoring committee noted efficacy favoring SU and more serious AEs and deaths with PBO. The study was unblinded at closure; pts were offered open-label SU and followed for survival. Median PFS by BICR was 12.6 mos (SU) vs 5.8 mos (PBO) (HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.18–0.55; P=0.00001). At study closure, there were 9 and 21 deaths in the SU and PBO arms (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.19–0.89; P=0.02). By Apr 2011 (2 yrs additional follow-up) a total of 87 deaths occurred (51%), median OS was estimated at 33.0 mos in the SU arm, and 26.7 mos in the PBO arm (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47–1.09; P=0.11 [Table]). 69% of pts crossed over to SU on progression. Conclusions: BICR confirmed investigator assessment of PFS and demonstrated a 6.8-mo improvement in median PFS with SU. Updated OS favors SU, although this result is non-significant for reasons that may include crossover of treatment and limited statistical power. [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".