MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Phase II study of cabozantinib (cabo) in patients (pts) with recurrent/metastatic endometrial cancer (EC): A study of the Princess Margaret, Chicago, and California phase II consortia.

2017· article· en· W2890032742 on OpenAlexaff
Neesha C. Dhani, Hal W. Hirte, Julia V. Burnier, Angela Jain, Marcus O. Butler, Stéphanie Lheureux, Jean Hurteau, Stephen Welch, Koji Matsuo, Michael Method, Waldo Jiménez, Carolyn Johnston, Erica Michelle Stringer, Mihaela Cristea, Anjali Mehta, Judy Quintos, Susie Tan, Lisa Wang, John Joseph Wright, Amit M. Oza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCancer Care OntarioJuravinski Cancer CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyCohortProgression-free survivalOncologyMucositisPhases of clinical researchCabozantinibEndometrial cancerCancerChemotherapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5524 Background: Recurrent/metastatic EC has a poor prognosis with no standard 2ndline therapy. Cabo is a multi-targeted kinase inhibitor of MET, VEGFR, TIE2, AXL & KIT, relevant in epithelial-stromal cross-talk. The role of MET/HGF in aggressive EC biology, where transient benefit of VEGF-targeting is due to MET/HGF, TIE2 & AXL, provides rationale for MET targeting in EC. Methods: PHL86 (NCI#9322/NCT01935934) is a multi-centre, phase II trial of cabo (60mg oral daily dose) in pts with EC recurring within a year of adjuvant chemotherapy (ctx), or with progression after 1 line of ctx for metastatic disease. Experimental (E) cohort was stratified by histology (serous (SER) vs endometroid (END)) in a Simon two-stage design for co-primary endpoints of response rate ( > 30%) & 12-week progression-free-survival (PFS) ( > 55%). Activity was defined as > 7 partial responses (PRs) or > 15 instances of 12 wk-PFS in 36 pts. Pts with rare histology EC were treated in a parallel exploratory (Ex) cohort. Results: From May 2013 to Nov 2016, 102 pts (E: 71; Ex: 31) have been treated with cabo after prior radiation (59) and/or ctx (no. lines: 1(77); 2(22)). Cabo was well tolerated with common toxicities of fatigue, nausea, diarrhea & hand-foot syndrome. Most frequent Grade 3/4 toxicity was hypertension (32/101 pts). Fistula/perforation occurred in 4 of 71 SER/END pts & 4 of 31 Ex pts; no risk factors were identified. In 33 END pts, 6 PRs & 24 instances of > 12-wk PFS were observed; median PFS is 4.8 mths (95% CI: 4.4 – 6.4) with estimated 6-mth PFS of 43% (95% CI: 27 to 59%). In 34 SER pts, 4 PRs & 20 instances of > 12-wk PFS were observed; median PFS is 4.0 mths (95% CI: 2.7 – 4.7) with estimated 6-mth PFS of 30% (95% CI: 15 to 46%). 4 pts have had PFS > 12 mths, 1 SER pt remains on study after 25mths. Mutational analysis demonstrated presence of KRAS with PTEN or PIK3CA mutations in 9 (SER/END) pts, of whom 8/9 pts met 12-wk PFS endpoint, with a median PFS 5.9 mth (4.1 to 15.4). Conclusions: Cabo has single agent activity in END and SER EC with durable disease control. Concurrent mutation in KRAS/PTEN/PIK3CA may enrich for response. The current data support further evaluation of cabo in EC. Clinical trial information: NCT01935934.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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