MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes in patients (pts) who had received sorafenib (S) as the only prior systemic therapy in the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib (C) versus placebo (P) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

2018· article· en· W2890000379 on OpenAlexaff
Robin Kate Kelley, Baek‐Yeol Ryoo, Philippe Merle, Joong‐Won Park, Luigi Bolondi, Stephen L. Chan, Ho Yeong Lim, Ari David Baron, Francis Parnis, Jennifer J. Knox, Stéphane Cattan, Thomas Cheung Yau, Julie C. Lougheed, Steven Milwee, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, Ann‐Lii Cheng, Tim Meyer, Ghassan K. Abou‐Alfa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineSorafenibHepatocellular carcinomaCabozantinibSystemic therapyGastroenterologyProgression-free survivalPlaceboOverall survivalOncologyCancerSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4088 Background: C inhibits tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. In the CELESTIAL trial, C improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with P in pts with advanced HCC after 1 or 2 prior lines of systemic therapy including S. Overall, median OS was 10.2 mo for C vs 8.0 mo for P (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63–0.92; p = 0.0049), and median PFS was 5.2 mo for C vs 1.9 mo for P (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36–0.52; p < 0.0001). Here, outcomes were analyzed for pts who had received S as the only prior systemic therapy. Methods: In the overall study, 707 pts were randomized 2:1 to receive C (60 mg qd) or P stratified by disease etiology, geographic region, and extent of disease. Eligible pts had pathologic diagnosis of HCC, Child-Pugh score A, and ECOG PS ≤1. Pts must have received prior S and could have received up to two lines of prior systemic therapy for HCC. Outcomes were analyzed for pts who received only prior S based on duration of prior S ( < 3 mo, 3 to < 6 mo, and ≥6 mo). Results: Out of the 495 pts who received only prior S, 136 (27%) received prior S for < 3 mo, 141 (28%) for 3 to < 6 mo, and 217 (44%) for ≥6 mo. OS and PFS were improved for C vs P in pts who had received only prior S; median OS was 11.3 mo for C vs 7.2 mo for P (HR 0.70), and median PFS was 5.5 mo for C vs 1.9 mo for P (HR 0.40). Results for OS and PFS also favored C for subgroups based on duration of prior S (Table). Median OS was generally longer for pts who received prior S for longer durations in both treatment arms. Grade 3/4 adverse events in subgroups were similar to those observed in the overall population in both arms. Conclusions: C improved OS and PFS vs P in pts with advanced HCC who had received S as the only prior systemic therapy irrespective of the duration of prior S treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT01908426. Prior S Only Duration of Prior S < 3 mo 3 to < 6 mo ≥6 mo C (N = 331) P (N = 164) C (N = 89) P (N = 47) C (N = 98) P (N = 43) C (N = 143) P (N = 74) Median OS, mo 11.3 7.2 8.9 6.9 11.5 6.5 12.3 9.2 OS HR (95% CI) 0.70 (0.55–0.88)* 0.72 (0.47–1.10) 0.65 (0.43–1.00) 0.82 (0.58–1.16) Median PFS, mo 5.5 1.9 3.8 1.8 5.4 1.9 5.7 1.9 PFS HR (95% CI) 0.40 (0.32–0.50)* 0.35 (0.23–0.52) 0.37 (0.25–0.56) 0.48 (0.35–0.67) *Stratified; all other HRs are unstratified.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→