MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: Phase 3 study (JAVELIN Renal 101).

2017· article· en· W2810134512 on OpenAlexaffabout
Toni K. Choueiri, Brian I. Rini, James Larkin, Georg A. Bjarnason, Gwénaëlle Gravis, Howard Gurney, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Daniel Keizman, John B.A.G. Haanen, Yoshihiko Tomita, Hirotsugu Uemura, Laurence Albigès, Manuela Schmidinger, Michael B. Atkins, Mariangela Mariani, Michael Shnaidman, Alessandra di Pietro, Robert J. Motzer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxitinibMedicineSunitinibAvelumabInternal medicineRenal cell carcinomaTyrosine-kinase inhibitorOncologyGastroenterologyCancerNivolumabImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS4594 Background: The combination of a checkpoint inhibitor with an anti-VEGF agent is a promising treatment strategy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Avelumab is a fully human IgG1 anti–PD-L1 antibody with clinical activity in aRCC and other tumor types (eg, Apolo et al. ASCO 2016; Gulley et al. ECC 2015). Axitinib is an anti-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for second-line treatment of aRCC (Rini et al. Lancet 2011) that has also shown clinical activity as a first-line (1L) therapy (Hutson et al. Lancet Oncol 2013). In an ongoing phase 1b study in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with aRCC, avelumab + axitinib administered at standard monotherapy doses showed a tolerable safety profile and encouraging antitumor activity (Larkin et al. ESMO 2016). JAVELIN Renal 101 is a randomized, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT02684006) comparing avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib in pts with treatment-naïve aRCC. Methods: The primary objective is to demonstrate superiority of avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib in prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) in the 1L treatment of pts with aRCC. Eligibility criteria include: aRCC with a clear cell component, ECOG PS ≤1, no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease, and measurable disease per RECIST v1.1. Approximately 583 pts will be randomized 1:1 and stratified based on ECOG PS (0 vs 1) and region (US vs Canada/Europe vs rest of the world). Pts receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg IV Q2W + axitinib 5 mg orally BID continuously (cycle length 6 weeks) or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Treatment is discontinued for unacceptable toxicity or if any other criteria for withdrawal are met. Pts may continue treatment beyond progression (RECIST v1.1) if investigator-assessed clinical benefit is achieved and treatment is well tolerated. PFS is assessed by blinded central review. Secondary efficacy assessments include overall survival, objective response, disease control, duration of response, and time to response. Safety, PK, and biomarker analyses will also be performed. The trial is currently active at 103 sites across 12 countries and as of Feb 2017, more than 40% of patients have been enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→