Baseline liver function and outcomes in the phase III REFLECT study in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
524 Background: Lenvatinib (LEN) is approved for first-line treatment of uHCC. Baseline (BL) liver function (Child-Pugh score [CPS] and albumin-bilirubin grade [ALBI]) was prognostic in uHCC patients (pts) who received sorafenib (SOR) but has not been assessed with LEN in uHCC. Here, we report post hoc analysis of BL liver function and efficacy/safety outcomes from the phase 3 REFLECT study. Methods: Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety were stratified by BL ALBI or CPS. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method. Independent radiologic review utilized mRECIST criteria for ORR. Safety was assessed using NCI-CTCAE, version 4.0. Results: Liver function measured by ALBI and CPS seemed to be prognostic for OS and ORR. Median OS was longer in ALBI grade 1 (ALBI-1) vs grade 2 (ALBI-2) pts or for CPS-5 vs CPS-6 on either treatment arm and was longer for LEN vs SOR. ORR was higher in pts with better ALBI or CPS and for LEN vs SOR. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events grade ≥3 were lower with better BL liver function (ALBI-1 vs ALBI-2: 70% vs 86%; CPS-5 vs CPS-6: 72% vs 86%). Study-drug withdrawal, dose reduction, and dose interruption occurred more often in pts with worse BL liver function. Conclusions: This post hoc analysis suggests ALBI (by OS, PFS and ORR) and CPS (by ORR) may be prognostic in uHCC pts and that BL liver function may be linked with efficacy/safety outcomes. This analysis also found that LEN provided benefit vs SOR for uHCC, regardless of BL liver function. The benefit of LEN may be underestimated, as more ALBI-2 pts and fewer ALBI-1 pts received LEN vs SOR. Clinical trial information: NCT01761266. [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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".