NRG GY012: A randomized phase II study comparing single-agent olaparib, single agent cediranib, and the combination of cediranib/olaparib in women with recurrent, persistent or metastatic endometrial cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TPS5609 Background: The Cancer Genome Atlas and others identified genomic events suggesting that endometrial cancer (EC) should be susceptible to DNA repair inhibition. Mutations in classical homologous recombination genes occur in 22% of EC, ARID1A 41% and PTEN loss occurs in 55% of EC. Data from pre-clinical models suggest poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors alone or in combination may be an effective therapeutic strategy in EC (Hansen 2016). Combinations of angiogenic inhibitors and PARP inhibitors have demonstrated synergistic effects and have been well tolerated in other tumor types. This study has been designed to compare 2 experimental arms exploring DNA repair inhibition versus cediranib alone which has previously shown promising activity in GOG 229J (Bender 2015). Methods: This is a multicenter randomized three arm study for patients with recurrent, metastatic or persistent EC. Patients are randomized 1:1:1 to cediranib PO 30 mg OD; olaparib 300 mg PO BID or the combination of cediranib 20 mg PO OD with olaparib 300 mg PO BID. All treatment cycles are 28 days. Primary endpoint is progression free survival (PFS). The study is powered to detect an increase in median PFS from 3.6 (based on cediranib alone) to 7.2 months with 90% power, using a one-sided test with α = 0.05 per comparison. Forty patients will be enrolled per arm, with an interim futility analysis planned. Eligibility includes endometroid, serous, and mixed histology EC; at least 1 prior line of chemotherapy (no more than 2 lines for metastatic disease), prior endocrine or immunotherapy is allowed; ECOG PS ≤ 2; adequate hepatic, bone marrow, coagulation and renal function. Archival tumor tissue and blood samples are being collected for translational studies. The study is open across the NRG network; 24 patients are enrolled to date . Amendments are planned to include additional arms investigating combination strategies targeting DNA repair and angiogenesis. Clinical trial information: 03660826.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".