MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

OV21/PETROC: A randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) phase II study of intraperitoneal (IP) versus intravenous (IV) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and optimal debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

2016· article· en· W2612460126 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Mackay, Christopher Gallagher, Wendy R. Parulekar, Jonathan A. Ledermann, Deborah K. Armstrong, Charlie Gourley, Ignacio Romero, Amanda Feeney, Paul Bessette, Marcia Hall, Johanne I. Weberpals, Geoff Hall, Susie Lau, Philippe Gauthier, Michael Fung‐Kee‐Fung, Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer, Chad Winch, Dongsheng Tu, Diane Provencher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityHôpital Notre-DameCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarboplatinDebulkingClinical endpointOvarian cancerRandomized controlled trialGynecologic oncologyChemotherapySurgeryCisplatinInternal medicineOncologyUrologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA5503 Background: The aim of this 2 stage randomized trial was to evaluate whether women undergoing neoadjuvant IV chemotherapy followed by delayed debulking surgery benefit from the addition of IP/IV treatment after surgery. Methods: Stage 1 was a randomized 3-arm design including 2 IP platinum regimens: 153 women who received 3-4 courses of IV platinum-based chemo for stage IIB-III (IV pleural effusion only) EOC followed by optimal debulking surgery ( < 1 cm) were randomized to: ARM1 D1 IV paclitaxel (pacli) 135mg/m2 + IV Carboplatin AUC 5/6 with d8 pacli IV 60 mg/m2 Q 21d X3; ARM 2 D1 IV pacli 135mg/m2 + IP cisplatin (Cis) 75 mg/m2 and d8 IP pacli 60 mg/m2 Q21d X3; or ARM 3 d1 IV pacli 135mg/m2+ IP Carboplatin AUC 5/6 and d8 IP pacli 60mg/m2 Q21dX3. A planned DSMC review confirmed dropping ARM2 (IP cis) and continuing study as an expanded phase II comparing 200 patients randomized to ARMs 1 and 3, which has 80% power to detect a 19% difference in progression rate at 9 mo (PD9, primary endpoint), 2-sided α = 0.05. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) are secondary efficacy endpoints. Results: Between 2009 and May 2015, 275 patients were accrued: n = 101 Arm 1, 72 Arm 2, 102 Arm 3. Median age was 62; 81.8%s had stage 3 C disease; 12.7% stage IV. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Median number of cycles was 3 all arms; completion rates Arm 1, 93.7% and Arm 3, 84.8%. Intention to treat PD9 rates: Arm 1: 38.6% (95% CI 29.1%- 48.8%) and Arm 3: 24.5% (95% CI 16.5%-34.0%); p = 0.065 stratified; p = 0.03 unstratified. Per protocol (eligible, received > one dose of protocol therapy) PD9 rates: Arm 1: 42.2% (95% CI 31.9%- 53.1%), Arm 3: 23.3% (95% CI 15.1%-33.4%); p = 0.03 stratified; p = 0.01 unstratified. Median PFS 11.3 mo (Arm1) and 12.5 mo (Arm 3); HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 - 1.17); p = 0.27. Median OS: 38.1 mo (Arm 1) and 59.3 mo (Arm 3); HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47-1.35) p = 0.40. Adverse events > Gr 3 rates: 23% (Arm 1) and 16% (Arm 3) (p = 0.24). Conclusions: The IP carboplatin based regimen, post neoadjuvant chemotherapy and debulking surgery, is well tolerated and associated with a lower PD9 rate compared to IV therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT00993655.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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