MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767242523 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox168.065

ACTR-78. TAMIGA: A PHASE II STUDY EVALUATING THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF CONTINUOUS BEVACIZUMAB THROUGH MULTIPLE LINES OF TREATMENT FOR GLIOBLASTOMA

2017· article· en· W2767242523 on OpenAlexaff
Alba A. Brandes, Miquel Gil, Frank Saran, Alain Carpentier, Anna K. Nowak, Warren Mason, François Dubois, Gaetano Finocchiaro, George Fountzilas, Vittorina Zagonel, Dana Cernea, Olivier Chinot, Martina Makrutzki, Chiedzo Mpofu, Hans-Joerg Urban, Josef Pichler

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBevacizumabMedicineTemozolomideLomustineInternal medicineClinical endpointPlaceboRandomizationAdverse effectProgression-free survivalOncologyPhases of clinical researchRandomized controlled trialChemotherapySurgeryCyclophosphamideVincristinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bevacizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor) prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma. We hypothesized overall-survival (OS) benefit from continuing bevacizumab (BEV) through multiple lines of treatment (TML). Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were enrolled in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study (TAMIGA/NCT01860638). First-line (1L) treatment was radiotherapy plus temozolomide and BEV with maintenance treatment consisting of temozolomide plus BEV (six cycles) and BEV monotherapy until first disease progression (PD1). After PD1, patients were randomized to receive lomustine (CCNU) plus BEV or CCNU + placebo (P) until PD2. After PD2, patients received BEV plus chemotherapy (investigator choice; CIC) or P+CIC. Primary endpoint: OS. Secondary endpoints: PFS, OS rates, and safety. Overall, 296 patients were enrolled and 123 patients (due to withdrawal) were randomized at PD1 (BEV+CCNU, n=61; P+CCNU, n=62). After PD2, 25 patients in each arm received third-line treatment. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced. At randomization, 32.8% and 30.6% of the patients were receiving corticosteroids for BEV and placebo, respectively. The study terminated prematurely, due to the high withdrawal rate, implying underpowered (i.e. power=60%) inferential testing. For BEV versus placebo, respectively: median OS from randomization was 6.4 vs 5.5 months (HR=1.04, 95% CI 0.69–1.59); 6-month OS rate was 49.2% vs 38.7%; median time to corticosteroid initiation during second-line treatment was 5.8 vs 5.4 months; 86% and 83% had an adverse event (AE); 19% and 15% had ≥1 treatment-related grade ≥3 AEs; 21% and 15% had AEs leading to discontinuation. The study was underpowered for analysis of the primary endpoint. Descriptive analyses suggest neither an improvement nor detriment with the addition of BEV TML, in recurrent glioblastoma. No new safety signals were observed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207