MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase II trial of temsirolimus (TEM) and bevacizumab (BEV) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

2012· article· en· W2990602488 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer J. Knox, Rui Qin, Jonathan Strosberg, Andreas Kaubisch, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, Tanios Bekaii‐Saab, Charles Erlichman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeutropeniaTemsirolimusInternal medicineHepatocellular carcinomaBevacizumabAdverse effectGastroenterologyPhases of clinical researchClinical endpointToxicityProgression-free survivalResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsOncologySurgeryChemotherapyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4099 Background: There is strong rationale to combine an m-TOR inhibitor (TEM) with a VEGF inhibitor (BEV) as a potentially active and well tolerated treatment for HCC. Both agents have shown modest single agent activity in HCC and so evaluated here in a phase II trial. Methods: A modified 2-stage Simon design planned 25 or 50 patients (pts) to test the null hypothesis that true tumor response rate is at most 10% andtrue 6-mo progression-free survival rate (PFS) (by RECIST) is at most 65%, or no better than single agent BEV (6 mo PR >2 pts or PFS 6 mo >18 out of 25.) Toxicity, TTP, PFS and survival were 2nd endpoints. Eligible pts had confirmed HCC with disease unresectable or amenable to other localised therapies, Child Pugh A liver status and no prior systemic therapy involving the VEGF or m-TOR class of agents. TEM was administered at starting dose 25 mg IV d1,8,15,22 with BEV at 10mg/kg IV d 1, 15, all q 28 days (1 cycle). Imaging was q 8 wks. Results: From 09/09 to 09/11, 27 eligible pts were enrolled with 25 evaluable for toxicity and efficacy. Med age 59 yrs, 85% male, PS 0/1: 35/65, 58% metastatic, >85% BCLC stage C. With med 6 cycles (range 1-14) delivered, most pts (88%) experienced a grade 3+ adverse event (a/e.) Common grade 3 a/es related to treatment included thrombocytopenia (40%), neutropenia (20%), leucopenia (12%), fatigue (8%), anemia, mucositis, dyspnea, diarrhea, bleeds, fistula, infections (4% each). There was one possible treatment related death. Per protocol dose reductions/discontinuation for TEM-related a/es were most common. There were 2 confirmed PRs and 16 pts progression-free by 6 mos. A third pt developed a late PR at cycle 13. Median TTP on study was 6 mos, median PFS was 7.4 mos and median survival was 8.3 mos, with 13 pts still alive. Accrual closed at end of stage 1 as neither the number of responses nor the PFS at 6 mos passed the futility stopping rule set for this combination. Conclusions: This multicenter study is the first HCC trial evaluating the BEV/TEM doublet. Despite manageable toxicity, the ORR and 6 mo PFS did not surpass assumptions based on single agent BEV in HCC. Further study of BEV/TEM combination in this advanced HCC population is not recommended.

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)0.002
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→