MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948320538 · doi:10.1080/2162402x.2019.1615817

Vaccinia-based oncolytic immunotherapy Pexastimogene Devacirepvec in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib failure: a randomized multicenter Phase IIb trial (TRAVERSE)

2019· article· en· W2948320538 on OpenAlexaff
Markus Moehler, Jeong Heo, H.C. Lee, Won Young Tak, Yee Chao, Seung Woon Paik, Hyung Joon Yim, Kwan Soo Byun, Ari David Baron, Guy Ungerechts, Derek J. Jonker, Leyo Ruo, Michael Cho, Andreas Kaubisch, Hennig Wege, Philippe Merle, Oliver Ebert, François Habersetzer, Jean‐Frédéric Blanc, Olivier Rosmorduc, Riccardo Lencioni, Richard H. Patt, Ann M. Leen, Friedrich Foerster, M. Homerin, Nicolas Stojkowitz, Monika Lusky, Jean‐Marc Limacher, Marie Hennequi, Nathalie Gaspar, B. McFadden, N. De Silva, Dongqi Shen, Adina Pelusio, David H. Kirn, Caroline J. Breitbach, James M. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueOncoImmunology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorafenibMedicineOncolytic virusClinical endpointHepatocellular carcinomaImmunotherapyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialOncologyClinical trialGastroenterologySurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec) is a vaccinia virus-based oncolytic immunotherapy designed to preferentially replicate in and destroy tumor cells while stimulating anti-tumor immunity by expressing GM-CSF. An earlier randomized Phase IIa trial in predominantly sorafenib-naïve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit. This randomized, open-label Phase IIb trial investigated whether Pexa-Vec plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) improved OS over BSC alone in HCC patients who failed sorafenib therapy (TRAVERSE).129 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to Pexa-Vec plus BSC vs. BSC alone. Pexa-Vec was given as a single intravenous (IV) infusion followed by up to 5 IT injections. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (RR), time to progression (TTP) and safety.A high drop-out rate in the control arm (63%) confounded assessment of response-based endpoints. Median OS (ITT) for Pexa-Vec plus BSC vs. BSC alone was 4.2 and 4.4 months, respectively (HR, 1.19, 95% CI: 0.78–1.80; p = .428). There was no difference between the two treatment arms in RR or TTP. Pexa-Vec was generally well-tolerated. The most frequent Grade 3 included pyrexia (8%) and hypotension (8%). Induction of immune responses to vaccinia antigens and HCC associated antigens were observed.Despite a tolerable safety profile and induction of T cell responses, Pexa-Vec did not improve OS as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure. The true potential of oncolytic viruses may lie in the treatment of patients with earlier disease stages which should be addressed in future studies.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01387555

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.254
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.

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

Citations130
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncoImmunologySame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207