MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcomes based on age in the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib (C) versus placebo (P) in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

2018· article· en· W2890810711 on OpenAlexaff
Lorenza Rimassa, İrfan Çiçin, Jean‐Frédéric Blanc, Heinz‐Josef Klümpen, Vittorina Zagonel, Albert Tran, Stéfano Kim, Zhong‐Zhe Lin, Vincent C. Tam, Saswati Hazra, Milan Mangeshkar, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, Ann‐Lii Cheng, Tim Meyer, Robin Kate Kelley, Ghassan K. Abou‐Alfa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaInternal medicineEtiologySorafenibGastroenterologyCabozantinibPlaceboIncidence (geometry)CancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4090 Background: The incidence of HCC generally increases with age, although the age of onset varies depending on disease etiology and geographic region (Yang, Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010). In the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426), C, an inhibitor of MET, VEGF receptors, and AXL, improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with P in pts with previously-treated advanced HCC. 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, we evaluate clinical outcomes based on age in the CELESTIAL trial. Methods: 707 pts were randomized 2:1 to receive C (60 mg qd) or P. Eligible pts had pathologic diagnosis of HCC, Child-Pugh score A, ECOG PS ≤1, and must have received prior sorafenib. Randomization was stratified by disease etiology, geographic region, and extent of disease. Outcomes were analyzed for subgroups based on age ( < 65 years and ≥65 years). Results: Median age at baseline was 64 years; 51% of pts were < 65 years old. Etiology of HBV was more frequent in pts < 65 years vs ≥65 years old (52% vs 22%), while etiology of HCV occurred at a similar frequency in both age groups (24%). Asian race and enrollment in Asia were more frequent in pts < 65 years vs ≥65 years old (46% vs 21% Asian race; 35% vs 14% enrolled in Asia). Median OS was 9.6 mo for C vs 7.7 mo for P (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62–1.05) for pts < 65 years old and 11.1 mo for C vs 8.3 mo for P (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.97) for pts ≥65 years old. Median PFS was 5.0 mo for C vs 1.9 mo for P (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35–0.57) for pts < 65 years old and 5.4 mo for C vs 2.0 mo for P (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35–0.59) for pts ≥65 years old. The discontinuation rate due to treatment-related adverse events in the C group was lower in pts < 65 years vs ≥65 years old (11% vs 22%), while the percentage of pts with any dose reduction (61% vs 64%) and the median average daily dose of C (37 mg vs 34 mg) were similar in both age groups. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in both age groups were consistent with those in the overall population. Conclusions: C improved OS and PFS vs P in pts with previously-treated advanced HCC irrespective of age category. Clinical trial information: NCT01908426.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207