MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selumetinib (Sel) and cisplatin/gemcitabine (CisGem) for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC): A randomized trial.

2018· article· en· W2890646471 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Doherty, Vincent C. Tam, Mairéad G. McNamara, David W. Hedley, Neesha C. Dhani, Eric Xueyu Chen, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, Patricia A. Tang, Hao‐Wen Sim, Grainne M. O’Kane, Stephanie DeLuca, Lisa Wang, Kelly Brooks, Jennifer J. Knox

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of CalgaryHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineClinical endpointToxicityInternal medicineGastroenterologySurgeryUrologyRandomized controlled trialCancerOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4084 Background: Sel (AZD6244, ARR142886) is an oral MEK inhibitor, with preclinical evidence of synergy with Gem in BTC. CisGem is standard first-line treatment for advanced BTC. This trial assessed the efficacy of Sel in continuous or sequential combination with CisGem in first-line advanced BTC. Methods: This randomized multicentre phase II trial (NCT02151084) enrolled patients (pts) with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CC) or gallbladder cancer (GBC). CisGem was given at standard doses. Sel started at 75mg BID, daily (continuous – Arm A) or day 1-5, 8-19 every 21 days (sequential – Arm B). Arm C was CisGem alone. Sel starting dose was reduced to 50mg BID for toxicity concerns after 32 enrolled pts (protocol amendment). Primary endpoint was % change in RECIST tumor size of 48 evaluable pts: Arm A or B vs Arm C at 10 wks. Secondary endpoints: PFS, OS, ORR, disease control rate (DCR) and toxicity. Results: 57 pts were enrolled: 29 female; 22 intrahepatic CC, 16 extrahepatic CC and 19 GBC. Baseline characteristics were similar across arms. Mean change in tumor size was not significantly different between either Sel arm and the control arm (Arm A p = 0.37, Arm B p = 0.53 [Table]). There were no significant differences in other efficacy endpoints. Toxicities appeared more frequent in Arm A; dose intensity of Gem and Sel were lower. More pts in Arms A and B stopped treatment due to toxicity than Arm C. Conclusions: Adding Sel to CisGem failed to improve tumor response at 10 wks, or prolong survival, but added toxicity and led to lower dose intensity. Exploration of biomarkers may identify a group deriving benefit, but it should not be studied further in unselected BTC. Clinical trial information: NCT02151084. Arm A (N = 19) Arm B (N = 19) Arm C (N = 19) overall p-value Mean % change in tumor size at 10 wks (95% CI) -7.3 (-24.3,+9.7) -16.3 (-26.2,-6.4) -13.2 (-25.2,-1.3) 0.80 ORR (%) 36 29 29 0.91 DCR (%) 86 88 88 0.95 Median PFS (months) 6.0 6.6 6.4 0.58 Median OS (months) 10.9 14.8 12.7 0.76 Treatment discontinuation reason Disease progression 7 7 13 Toxicity 4 6 0 Death 0 0 2 Withdrawn consent 1 3 1 Non-protocol surgery 0 1 0 Toxicity Events (Grade [G]) G 3 63 52 40 G 4 8 13 10 G 5 2 1 0 Non-hematologic G3-5 55 34 34 Relative Dose Intensity C1-3, % Cis 92.2 94.5 93.2 0.21 Gem 85.7 93.8 94.1 0.10 Sel 74.1 85.6 - 0.28

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 score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.499
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207