MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A randomized phase II study of pelareorep (REO) plus docetaxel vs. docetaxel alone in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Canadian Cancer Trials Group study IND 209.

2017· article· en· W2890178450 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bernhard J. Eigl, Eric Winquist, Dongsheng Tu, Sebastién J. Hotte, Christina M. Canil, Richard Gregg, Muhammad Zulfiqar, Scott North, Susan Ellard, Joseph D. Ruether, Lyly Le, Ankineedu Saranya Kakumanu, Ashley Theis, Christopher M. Booth, Kylea Potvin, Kim N., Lesley Seymour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityBaker Hughes (Canada)BC Cancer AgencyKelowna General HospitalOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationJuravinski Cancer CentreQueen's UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocetaxelMedicineProstate cancerInternal medicineClinical endpointOncologyTaxaneCancerAdverse effectPhases of clinical researchRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyUrologySurgeryBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5021 Background: Pelareorep (REO) is an oncolytic virus with in vitro and in vivo activity in many cancers, including prostate. It has in vitro synergism with microtubule targeted agents especially taxanes. We undertook a clinical trial to evaluate REO in mCRPC patients (pts) receiving docetaxel. Methods: In this randomized, open-label multicenter phase II study, pts received docetaxel 75mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle in combination with REO given as 3x1010 TCID50 IV daily on days 1-5 (arm A), or alone (arm B). The primary endpoint was 12-week lack of disease progression (LPD) rate. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate; survival; circulating tumor cell (CTC) enumeration at 0, 6 and 12 weeks; PSA response rate and biomarkers. Results: Eighty-five pts were randomized. Median age was 69, ECOG performance status (PS) was 0/1/2 in 31%/66%/3% of pts. Bone/regional lymph node/liver metastases were present in 98%/24%/6% of pts. More pts in arm A had poor prognostic factors for survival at baseline (median prognostic index 1.44 vs. 1.29). The median number of cycles delivered for arms A/B was 7/9 (range 1-10 and 1-13). In arm A, 51%/68% of pts received ≥90% of planned dose intensity of docetaxel/REO respectively, vs. 76% of pts for docetaxel in arm B. Adverse events (AE) were as expected for docetaxel therapy but more prevalent in arm A (grade 3 or higher all AEs 80 vs. 74%). A higher rate of grade 4 febrile neutropenia was noted in arm A (7 vs. 0%) but may represent virus related fevers. The 12-week LPD rate was 61% and 52.4% in A/B respectively (p = 0.51). OS was worse in arm A vs. B (HR 1.95; 95% CI 0.94-4.06; p = 0.07 after adjusting for age, PS and baseline prognostic score). There was no difference between arms in CTC favourable status at any timepoint. No survival benefit of REO with D was found in any subset from the biomarker analysis. Conclusions: While the combination of REO with D for patients with mCRPC was tolerable and LPD rate was comparable in both arms, docetaxel dose intensity and survival were inferior and so this combination, as tested, does not merit further study. Clinical trial information: NCT01619813.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicVirus-based gene therapy research→French-language works237,207→