MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Refinement of prespecified cutoff for genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in ARIEL2 part 1: A phase II study of rucaparib in patients (pts) with high grade ovarian carcinoma (HGOC).

2016· article· en· W2737281927 on OpenAlexaff
Robert L. Coleman, Elizabeth M. Swisher, Amit M. Oza, Clare L. Scott, Heidi Giordano, Kevin Lin, Gottfried E. Konecny, Anna V. Tinker, David M. O’Malley, Rebecca Kristeleit, Ling Ma, Katherine M. Bell‐McGuinn, James D. Brenton, Janiel M. Cragun, Ana Oaknin, Isabelle Laure Ray-Coquard, Scott H. Kaufmann, Sandra Goble, Lara Maloney, Iain A. McNeish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCutoffInternal medicineOncologyLoss of heterozygosityGastroenterologyAlleleGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5540 Background: ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) prospectively evaluated a tumor-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) LOH assay and novel algorithm to predict sensitivity to rucaparib based on BRCAmutstatus and degree of genomic LOH. Methods: Pts with measurable, platinum-sensitive HGOC were classified as BRCAmut, BRCAwt/LOHhigh (BRCA-like), or BRCAwt/LOHlow by NGS analysis of tumor tissue DNA. The primary objective of this analysis was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) of BRCAmut vs LOHhigh and LOHlow tumors. A planned post hoc analysis identified a refined genomic LOH cutoff to differentiate PFS of pts with LOHhigh vs LOHlowtumors. Results: ARIEL2 part 1 completed enrollment in December 2014; the data cutoff date was January 18, 2016. In 204 treated pts, median age was 65 years; median number of prior regimens was 1. Efficacy data are shown in the Table. The confirmed radiologic objective response rate (rORR) for germline (n=20) and somatic (n=20) BRCAmut pts was 85% and 75%, respectively. Refinement of the LOH cutoff improved median PFS and PFS HR in the LOHhigh vs LOHlowgroup. Common treatment-related AEs included nausea (71%; grade ≥3: 3%), fatigue (59%; grade ≥3: 6%), ALT/AST increased (41%; grade ≥3: 11%), and anemia (30%; grade ≥3: 19%). Three pts died due to disease progression. Conclusions: Refinement of the genomic LOH cutoff improves selection of BRCAwt/LOHhigh pts more likely to benefit from rucaparib. Clinical trial information: NCT01891344. BRCAmut Prespecified LOH Cutoff BRCAwt/LOHhigh BRCAwt/LOHlow n* 40 82 70 rORR, % 80.0 35.4† 12.9† DOR‡ 11.2 (7.4–13.7) 10.8 (5.5–12.0) 5.9 (4.6–8.5) PFS‡ 12.8 (9.0–14.7) 5.7 (5.3–7.6) 5.2 (3.6–5.5) PFS HR§ 0.27 (0.16–0.44); P<0.001 0.62 (0.42–0.90); P=0.011 − BRCAmut Refined LOH Cutoff BRCAwt/LOHhigh BRCAwt/LOHlow n* 40 69 83 rORR, % 80.0 39.1† 13.3† DOR‡ 11.2 (7.4–13.7) 10.8 (7.6–20.6) 5.7 (1.9–7.4) PFS‡ 12.8 (9.0–14.7) 7.2 (5.5–9.6) 5.0 (3.6–5.4) PFS HR§ 0.25 (0.15–0.42); P<0.001 0.51 (0.34–0.74); P<0.001 − DOR, duration of response; HR, hazard ratio. *LOH not determined for 12 pts. †Both confirmed and unconfirmed responses (RECIST v1.1). ‡Median months (95% confidence interval [CI]). §HR (95% CI) vs BRCAwt/LOHlow.

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)0.003
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicPARP inhibition in cancer therapyFrench-language works237,207