Maintenance olaparib after platinum-based chemotherapy in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (OC) and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm): Efficacy by surgical and tumor status in the Phase III SOLO1 trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5541 Background: In SOLO1 (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.23–0.41; Moore et al. N Engl J Med 2018) in pts with newly diagnosed advanced OC and a BRCAm. This analysis evaluates olaparib efficacy by timing of surgery, presence of residual tumor following surgery and response status after completion of chemotherapy in SOLO1. Methods: Pts underwent cytoreductive surgery and were in clinical complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) after platinum-based chemotherapy. Pts were stratified by response and received olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS and objective response were assessed using modified RECIST v1.1. Results: 260 pts were randomized to olaparib and 131 to placebo; one pt did not receive placebo. Median follow-up was 41 months in both arms. 63% and 35% of pts underwent upfront and interval surgery, 21% and 76% had residual and no residual macroscopic disease after surgery, and 74% and 26% entered the study in clinical CR and PR (based on electronic case report form [eCRF] data). PFS was significantly improved regardless of the timing of surgery, residual disease status after surgery or response after platinum-based chemotherapy (Table). In pts with baseline radiologic evidence of disease (n=80; eCRF), the objective response rate was 43% for olaparib (CR, 28%) and 23% for placebo (CR, 12%). Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib improved outcomes compared with placebo in pts with newly diagnosed advanced OC and a BRCAm, regardless of surgical or tumor status. Clinical trial information: NCT01844986. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".