Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant pazopanib versus placebo after nephrectomy in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (PROTECT).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4507 Background: PROTECT (NCT01235962) evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib (PAZ) versus placebo in patients (pts) with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) post nephrectomy. Methods: 1538 pts with resected pT2 (high grade), pT3 or greater clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to PAZ or placebo for 1 year. The starting dose (800 mg) following treatment of 403 pts was lowered to 600 mg to improve tolerability and primary endpoint was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) with PAZ 600 (N = 1135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in intent-to-treat (ITT) PAZ 600, and DFS follow-up analysis was performed after an additional 12 months. Secondary endpoints included DFS with ITT PAZ 800 and ITT ALL, and safety. Results: Disease characteristics were similar between arms. The primary analysis results of DFS ITT 600 were not significant [HR: 0.862; 95% CI, 0.699, 1.063; p = 0.165] (Table). The secondary endpoint of DFS in ITT PAZ 800 and ITT ALL yielded 31% and 20% risk reduction, respectively. Updated DFS analysis in ITT 600 showed a higher HR with longer follow up. Increased ALT and AST were the most common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the PAZ 600 (ALT 16% and AST 5%) and PAZ 800 (ALT 18% and AST 7%) groups. Conclusions: The study did not meet the primary DFS endpoint in ITT 600; however, a 31% decrease in the risk of recurrence was observed in ITT 800. The safety profiles in the 600 mg and 800 mg groups were similar and consistent with PAZ prior experience. Clinical trial information: NCT01235962. [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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 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".