MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Docetaxel with or without ramucirumab after immune checkpoint inhibition in platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): Prespecified subgroup analysis from the phase 3 RANGE trial.

2018· article· en· W2791757400 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Drakaki, Conor J. Kirby, Michiel Simon Van Der Heijden, Daniel P. Petrylak, Thomas Powles, Kim N., Aude Fléchon, Andrea Necchi, Lajos Géczi, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Georgios Gakis, Sergio Bracarda, Simon Chowdhury, Chia-Chi Lin, Daniel Keizman, Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Astra M. Liepa, Annamaria H. Zimmermann, Katherine M. Bell‐McGuinn, Daniel Castellano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelInternal medicineClinical endpointMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaAtezolizumabOncologyProgression-free survivalNeutropeniaRamucirumabProgressive diseasePopulationTolerabilityDiscontinuationFebrile neutropeniaGastroenterologyPembrolizumabChemotherapyCancerRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectBladder cancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

434 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting PD-1/PD-L1 have shown objective response rates (ORR) of 15-21% in PD-L1 unselected patients (pts) with platinum-refractory mUC. Overall results of RANGE, a randomized, double-blinded phase 3 trial comparing ramucirumab and docetaxel (R+D) to placebo and docetaxel (P+D) in pts with platinum-refractory mUC demonstrated an ORR of 24.5% to R+D and a statistically significant improvement in progression free survival (PFS; median 4.07 vs 2.76 mo; HR 0.757). Here we present a pre-specified subgroup analysis of pts who received a prior ICI. Methods: RANGE enrolled pts with progressive mUC during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Additional prior treatment with one ICI was permitted. Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive D 75 mg/m2 up to 10 cycles with R 10 mg/kg or P on day 1 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria. Primary endpoint, investigator-assessed PFS, was analyzed in the first 437 randomized pts. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response, and safety. Radiographic assessment occurred every 6 weeks. Results: Thirty three of the 437 pts (8%) in the PFS population received a prior ICI. The majority (91%) received the ICI immediately following platinum and immediately prior to RANGE. Most pts received atezolizumab (55%) or pembrolizumab (36%); ORR to prior ICI was 6% and the majority (67%) had progressive disease as best response. Median duration of the ICI was 3.5 mo (IQR 1.6-5.2). Disease sites at entry onto RANGE included lymph node (79%), lung (48%), liver (39%) and bone (18%). At data cutoff, responses were achieved by 5/14 (35.7%) on R+D, compared to 2/19 (10.5%) on P+D. Responses to R+D were independent of disease site. Of pts with liver metastases, 3/8 responded to R+D compared to 0/5 on P+D. Overall, median PFS was 5.29 mo on R+D and 2.76 mo on P+D (HR 0.920). The frequency of grade ≥3 adverse events was similar between arms. Conclusions: Acknowledging limitations of sample size, R+D showed higher ORR than P+D in pts who had progressed on platinum and ICI therapy, including those with liver metastases. Clinical trial information: NCT02426125.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→