MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Progression free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in first-line advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) therapy: A Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup individual (GCIG) patient-level (IPD) analysis of multiple randomized trials.

2018· article· en· W2892202359 on OpenAlexaff
Xavier Paolettí, Liz-Anne Lewsley, Gennaro Daniele, Adrian Cook, Nozomu Yanaihara, Anna V. Tinker, Gunnar B. Kristensen, Petronella B. Ottevanger, Gerasimos Aravantinos, Ingrid Boere, Robert Fruscio, Anna K.L. Reyners, Éric Pujade-Lauraine, Andrea Harkin, Sandro Pignata, Tatsuo Kagimura, Stephen Welch, Eleni Karamouza, Rosalind Glasspool

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurrogate endpointClinical endpointProgression-free survivalInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialOncologyClinical trialOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5576 Background: OS is considered the gold standard endpoint for controlled clinical trials but it requires extended follow-up (median OS > 40 months for first line therapy) and large sample sizes. Our objective was to evaluate whether PFS based on CA125 measurements confirmed by radiological exam or on combined GCIG criteria is a surrogate endpoint for OS in AOC. Methods: Using the meta-analytic approach on trials published after 2000, correlations between PFS and OS at the individual level, and between treatment effects on PFS and on OS at the trial level, were estimated using Kendall’ tau and copula bivariate (R2Copula) models respectively. Criteria for PFS surrogacy required R2Copula ≥ 0.80. Results: We analyzed IPD from 8,973 patients enrolled in 15 randomized first line trials of standard (n = 7), intensification (n = 5) and maintenance (n = 3) chemotherapies or targeted treatments. No heterogeneity in the treatment effects across trials was detected. High correlations were found at the individual level (tau = 0.69) but low correlation at the trial level (R2Copula = 0.03). Sub-group analyses led to similar results. Conclusions: This large IPD meta-analysis did not establish PFS as a surrogate endpoint for OS in first line treatment of AOC, but the analysis was limited by the narrow range of treatment effects observed and post study treatment. Additional trials are being collected that will enable us to refine the sub-groups analyses. Table of results Endpoint / Trial type Trials N (pts) taua R2Copulaa Overall 15 (8973) 0.69 0.03 CA125 confirmed by radiological exam 9 (5126) 0.67 0.16 GCIG criteria 4 (2548) 0.7 0.14 Carbo-Tax as control 9 (5807) 0.72 0.05 Standard or intensification 12 (7703) 0.71 0.10 Maintenance 3 (1270) 0.64 0.14 atau and R2 values range from 0 (no association) to 1 (perfect correlation).

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.031
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→