Real-world eligibility of advanced pancreatic (APC) patients for maintenance olaparib.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
653 Background: The POLO trial demonstrated an improvement in progression free survival (PFS, 7.4 months vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio, HR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.82; P=0.004) with olaparib compared to placebo, as maintenance therapy in APC patients with germline BRCA 1/2 mutations with disease control after 16 weeks (DC16) of platinum-based first-line therapy. This study aims to identify the proportion of real-world APC patients eligible for olaparib, and to determine the PFS and overall survival (OS) after DC16. Methods: APC patients treated with first-line FFX in Alberta were identified (2011-2018). We conducted an analysis of baseline characteristics to identify factors associated with DC16. Results: We identified 165 APC patients treated with FFX with unknown BRCA 1/2 status, of which 56% were males and median age at diagnosis was 59 years (interquartile range 38-75 years). Of these, 72 (44%) had DC16. Normal LDH and ALP, and albumin more than 35 g/L were associated with a higher likelihood of having DC16 (table). The PFS of patients with DC16 was significantly higher than those with DC<16 weeks (9.3 vs 2.5 months, HR=0.22, 95% CI 0.15-0.32, P<0.001). In patients who had DC16, median PFS and OS from that point were 5.6 months and 17.9 months, respectively. Conclusions: Less than half of real-world patients treated with first-line FFX would be eligible for olaparib by the criteria of DC16 with FFX. Median PFS after DC16 is 5.6 months with FFX in patients with unknown BRCA 1/2 status. This provides a baseline for future trials evaluating maintenance strategies. Patients with APC and higher disease burden (higher ALP and LDH) and low albumin are less likely to have DC16. [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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".