MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NUC-1031 in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (NuTide:121).

2020· article· en· W3005400447 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer J. Knox, Mairéad G. McNamara, Lipika Goyal, Mark Doherty, Christoph Springfeld, Joon Oh Park, Aimery de Gramont, Helena Verdaguer, John Zalcberg, Daniel H. Palmer, T.R. Jeffry Evans, Paul J. Ross, Juan W. Valle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersNuCana
KeywordsTolerabilityMedicineCisplatinGemcitabineInternal medicineAdverse effectOncologyCancerCombination therapyGastroenterologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS602 Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) carries a poor prognosis and has no approved treatments. Although gemcitabine + cisplatin (GemCis) is accepted as the global standard of care (SoC) for 1st-line treatment, the reported unconfirmed ORR and OS from randomized studies of this combination are low at 18.5-26.1% and 11.2-11.7 months, respectively. NUC-1031, a phosphoramidate transformation of gemcitabine, is designed to overcome key cancer resistance mechanisms associated with gemcitabine. Promising signs of efficacy have been observed with single-agent NUC-1031 in a Phase I study in advanced solid tumors (Blagden et al 2018) and in the Phase Ib ABC-08 study of NUC-1031 + cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle for the 1st-line treatment of advanced BTC. Of 14 patients (pts) enrolled in 2 cohorts (NUC-1031: 625 mg/m2 and 725 mg/m2), 1 pt achieved a CR and 6 pts achieved PR, giving an unconfirmed ORR of 50% and representing an approximate doubling of ORR over SoC. The combination was well-tolerated with no unexpected adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities. The RP2D of NUC-1031 in combination with cisplatin is 725 mg/m2. The tolerability profile together with robust efficacy signals suggested NUC-1031 + cisplatin may represent a more effective therapy than GemCis for BTC and led to initiation of a global Phase III study. Methods: A Phase III, open-label, randomized head-to-head study of NUC-1031 + cisplatin versus GemCis for 1st-line treatment of advanced BTC will include pts ≥18 years with histologically- or cytologically-proven BTC (including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder, or ampullary cancer), who have had no prior systemic chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease. A total of 828 pts will be randomized (1:1) to either 725 mg/m2 NUC-1031 + 25 mg/m2 cisplatin or 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine + 25 mg/m2 cisplatin, administered on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Primary objectives are OS and ORR. Secondary objectives include further measurements of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported quality of life. The study will be conducted at approximately 120 sites across North America, Europe and Asia Pacific countries. Clinical trial information: NCT04163900.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207