MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A randomized, multicenter, phase II trial of gemcitabine (G), cisplatin (C) +/- veliparib (V) in patients with pancreas adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and a known germline (g)BRCA/ PALB2 mutation.

2020· article· en· W3004590183 on OpenAlexaff
Eileen M. O’Reilly, Jonathan W. Lee, Mark M. Zalupski, Marinela Capanu, Jennifer Park, Talia Golan, Esther Tahover, Maeve A. Lowery, Joanne F. Chou, Vaibhav Sahai, Robin Brenner, Hedy L. Kindler, Kenneth H. Yu, Alice Zervoudakis, Shreya Vemuri, Zsofia K. Stadler, Richard Kinh Gian, Neesha C. Dhani, Alice P. Chen, David P. Kelsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineGemcitabineNeutropeniaGastroenterologyClinical endpointHazard ratioPARP inhibitorSurgeryOncologyRandomized controlled trialCancerToxicityConfidence intervalPoly ADP ribose polymeraseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

639 Background: gBRCA 1,2 mutations occur in 5-8% PDAC. Platinum and poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) effective in BRCA-mut cancers. Phase I GC + V high RR 78%; combination may delay resistance in PDAC (O’Reilly, Cancer, 2018). Herein, we evaluate GC +/- V in a multi-national, randomized phase II trial. Methods: Eligibility: Untreated germline (g)BRCA, PALB2 mut PDAC; measurable stage III/IV; ECOG 0-1. Randomized 1:1 Arm A or B. Treatment: Arm A: G 600 mg/m2 IV, C 25 mg/m2 IV, d3 and 10, V 80 mg PO BID day 1-12, all q 3 weeks or Arm B: GC only. Primary endpoint: RECIST 1.1 response rate (RR). Simon 2-stage per arm: null hypothesis 10% vs promising 28%; type I, II error 10%. Secondary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS), OS (m), disease control rate (CR+PR+SD), safety and correlative analyses. PFS, OS compared between arms using log-rank test and RR, DCR using Fisher’s exact test between arms. Results: N = 52 enrolled 01/14- 11/18. N = 2 withdrew Arm B. N = 50 for ITT. Male = 22 (44%), Female = 28. Median age = 64 years (range 37-82). BRCA1 N = 12, BRCA2 N = 35, PALB2 N = 3. Stage III N = 8; Stage IV N = 42. Hematologic Toxicity: Arm A vs Arm B: Gd 3-4 neutropenia 13 (48%) vs 7 (30%); Gd 3-4 platelets 15 (55%) vs 2 (9%); Gd 3-4 anemia 14 (52%) vs 8 (35%). Non-hematologic toxicity similar Arm A vs B. Exploratory analyses (combined Arms): Med OS if > 4 m platinum → PARPi: 23 m (95%CI 6.5- 53.9). Med OS by BRCA: BRCA1: 14 m (8.1- 18.5); BRCA2: 20.2 m (12.3- 24.4). Med OS by ECOG: ECOG 0: 23 m (13.8- 24.5); ECOG 1: 14.3 (8.1 vs 16.4). Two-year OS rate for entire cohort: 30.6% and 3-year OS: 17.8%. Conclusions: GC +/- V very active in gBRCA/PALB2 mut PDAC with high RR, PFS, OS with both A, B significantly exceeding threshold RR. Improved DCR arm A vs B, but with greater heme toxicity A vs B. Study confirms GC as reference treatment in gBRCA/PALB2 with durable survival in subset. Funding: National Cancer Institute, CTEP, Lustgarten Foundation, AbbVie. Clinical trial information: NCT01585805 . [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 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)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207