MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NRG-GI002: A phase II clinical trial platform using total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC)—First experimental arm (EA) initial results.

2019· article· en· W2947643418 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. George, Greg Yothers, Theodore S. Hong, Marcia M. Russell, Y. Nancy You, William A. Parker, Samuel A. Jacobs, Peter C. Lucas, Marc J. Gollub, William A. Hall, Lisa A. Kachnic, Namrata Vijayvergia, Norman Wolmark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVeliparibClinical endpointColorectal cancerInternal medicinePopulationTotal mesorectal excisionHazard ratioNeoadjuvant therapySurgeryOncologyRandomized controlled trialCancerConfidence intervalBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3505 Background: This NCTN multi-arm randomized phase II modular clinical trial platform utilizes TNT with parallel EAs in LARC. EAs are not intended for direct comparison, but rather to test a variety of hypotheses in a consistent high-risk pt population with correlative biomarkers. Primary endpoint (EP) and available secondary EPs from the first EA using veliparib (a PARPi) are reported. NCT02921256. Methods: Stage II/III pts with LARC (with any ONE of the following: distal location [cT3-4 ≤5cm from anal verge, any N]; bulky [any cT4 or tumor within 3mm of mesorectal fascia]; high risk for metastatic disease [cN2]; or not a sphincter-sparing surgery [SSS] candidate) were randomized to neoadjuvant FOLFOX (x 4mo) → chemoRT (cape with 50.4Gy +/- veliparib 400mg PO BID) → surgery 8-12 wks later. Primary EP: 4 point reduction in Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer (NAR) score with a one-sided α = 0.10 and 80% power. NAR compared by linear model controlling for stratification and possibly other factors. Secondary EPs: OS, DFS, toxicity, pCR, cCR, therapy completion, negative surgical margins, and SSS. Binary EPs compared by Fisher’s exact test. Reported p-values are two-sided. Results: From 10/2016 - 2/2018, 178 pts were randomized (88 control, 90 veliparib). Baseline characteristics were balanced except for candidate for SSS at entry (39% control, 61% veliparib). 140 pts were evaluable for NAR (72 control, 68 veliparib). Mean NAR was 12.6 control (95% CI: 9.8–15.3) vs 13.7 for veliparib (CI: 10.2–17.2). Controlling for stratification (p = 0.69) or stratification and candidate for SSS (p = 0.78), NAR difference was not significant. pCR = 21.6% vs 33.8% (p = 0.14); cCR = 28.2% vs 33.3% (p = 0.60); and SSS = 52.5% vs 59.3% (p = 0.43). Most common grade 3/4 AEs were diarrhea and cytopenias. The EA had two deaths (cardiac arrest [FOLFOX]; enterocolitis [chemoRT]). Conclusions: Veliparib added to chemoRT as part of TNT was safe and without unexpected short-term toxicities but failed to improve the NAR score. Support: U10CA180868, -180822; UG1-189867; U24-196067; AbbVie. Clinical trial information: NCT02921256.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.305
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207