ASPEN: A randomized phase II trial of everolimus versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TPS4590 Background: Currently no level 1 evidence exists to guide therapeutic decisions in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Case series and retrospective analyses suggest that strategies targeting either the VEGF or mTOR/TORC1 pathways have clinical activity in papillary, chromophobe, or poorly differentiated histologic subtypes. Methods: We are conducting an international, randomized phase 2 trial of patients with metastatic non-clear cell RCC; either papillary, chromophobe, or undifferentiated histology; any Motzer risk group; and who have had no prior systemic therapy. All patients contribute tissue to an international biorepository for correlative genomic, genetic, and protein biomarker studies, along with companion longitudinal plasma and urine angiome studies. Patients are randomized to either everolimus or sunitinib (1:1) at FDA approved dosing until progression. The primary endpoint is progression free survival. Trial status: Seventy-three out of a planned 108 subjects have been enrolled at the time of abstract submission: median age 64, 59 white, 10 black, 4 unknown race, and includes 42 papillary and 31 chromophobe/undifferentiated histologies, 49 men and 22 women. Accrual is anticipated to be completed by December 2013. Accrual distribution by country is currently 43 (USA), 27 (UK), and 3 (Canada). The first DSMB meeting was conducted after 40 subjects completed at least 6 months of therapy and concluded that there were no unexpected safety signals and that the study should proceed. Tissue (primary, some metastatic, urine, plasma, whole blood) has been collected on all patients to date through the Duke Center for Human Genetics Biorepository. Clinical trial information: NCT01108445.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".