MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Any regression of tumor (ART) within 12 weeks versus RECIST 1.1 response category as an intermediate endpoint to assess the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC).

2020· article· en· W3007531526 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Curran, Gregory R. Pond, Amin H. Nassar, Sarah Abou Alaiwi, Bradley A. McGregor, Kerry L. Kilbridge, Guru Sonpavde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsProportional hazards modelInternal medicineOncologyPopulationDemographicsProgressive diseaseDiseaseDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

473 Background: Many ICIs are approved to treat mUC following platinum-based chemo and as 1st-line therapy for selected patients (pts). While RECIST 1.1 responses are generally durable and associated with prolonged survival, the benefit of ICIs extends beyond this group of pts. Stable disease (SD) consists of a heterogeneous population of pts with both increase and decrease in tumor size and is confounded by the impact of pre-ICI disease pace. We hypothesized that in the setting of ICIs, any regression of tumor (ART) within 12 weeks may capture early benefit and correlate with survival more comprehensively than RECIST 1.1. Methods: mUC pts who received an ICI following platinum-based chemo at DFCI were eligible for analysis. Pts were required to have tumor size changes, RECIST 1.1 response by week 12 and survival data available. Demographics and prognostic factors were collected. Descriptive stats were calculated, and univariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was conducted to examine the prognostic effect of ART and RECIST 1.1 with overall survival (OS). Results: 104 pts were evaluable. The median age was 66 (range 34-89). 71% were male. The numbers of pts with ART and RECIST1.1 partial response (PR) were 45 (43.3%) and 32 (30.1%), respectively. Univariable analyses identified an association between ART and RECIST 1.1 response with OS (p<0.001). The 1-year OS (95% CI) for ART vs. no ART was 83.6 % (68.7, 91.8) and 35.9 % (23.1, 48.8), while the 1-year OS (95% CI) for RECIST 1.1 response vs. no response was 81.3% (62.9, 91.1) and 45.6% (32.9, 57.4), respectively. RECIST 1.1 category was not significantly associated with OS (p-value=0.68) after adjusting for ART; however, statistically, ART associated with OS (p=0.002) after adjusting for RECIST 1.1 category. The modest size of this cohort is a limitation. Conclusions: ART within 12 weeks is identified early and is robustly associated with OS in pts with mUC receiving post-platinum ICIs. ART may serve as a more optimal intermediate endpoint for survival compared to RECIST 1.1 in the setting of ICIs. Evaluating this endpoint in other malignancies is warranted.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→