MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Record-3: Phase II randomized trial comparing sequential first-line everolimus (EVE) and second-line sunitinib (SUN) versus first-line SUN and second-line EVE in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

2013· article· en· W3010644992 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Motzer, Carlos H. Barrios, Tae Min Kim, S. Falcon, Thomas M. Cosgriff, W G Harker, K. Pittman, Roberto Sabbatini, Sun Young Rha, Thomas W. Flaig, Ray D. Page, Sevil Bavbek, J. Thaddeus Beck, Poulam M. Patel, Edward Schiff, A. Thareau Vaury, Julie Niolat, Sven Gogov, Özlem Anak, Jennifer J. Knox

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSunitinibHazard ratioEverolimusProgression-free survivalInternal medicineSurgeryRenal cell carcinomaConfidence intervalOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4504 Background: Sequential SUN (tyrosine kinase inhibitor, TKI) until progression of disease (PD) followed by EVE (mTOR inhibitor) is standard therapy for patients with mRCC. This open-label, multicenter, phase II trial compared 1st-line EVE to 1st-line SUN (NCT00903175). Sequential EVE→SUN was also compared with standard SUN→EVE. Methods: Patients with mRCC (clear or non-clear cell) naive to prior systemic therapy were randomized 1:1 to either 1st-line EVE 10 mg/day or SUN 50 mg/day (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off) until PD. Patients then crossed over and continued on the alternate drug until PD. Primary objective was to assess PFS noninferiority of 1st-line EVE to 1st-line SUN; defined as an observed hazard ratio (HR)1st EVE/SUN ≤1.1. Overall survival (OS), combined 1st-line and 2nd-line PFS, and safety were secondary end points. Results: From10/09 to 6/11, 471 patients enrolled (EVE→SUN, n = 238; SUN→EVE, n = 233). Median age was 62 years, 85.4% had clear-cell RCC, and MSKCC favorable/intermediate/poor risk was 30/56/14%. Median follow-up was 22.7 months. A total of 53.7% of patients who discontinued 1st-line EVE entered into 2nd-line SUN and 51.6% of patients who discontinued 1st-line SUN entered into 2nd-line EVE. Median PFS (95% CI) was 7.9 (5.6-8.2) months for 1st-line EVE and 10.7 (8.2-11.5) months for 1st-line SUN. HR1st EVE/1st SUN (95% CI) was 1.43 (1.15-1.77). Median OS (95% CI) was 22.4 (19.7-NA) months for EVE→SUN and 32.0 (20.5-NA) months for SUN→EVE; HREVE-SUN/SUN-EVE (95% CI) was 1.24 (0.94-1.64). A trend in favor of SUN→EVE for OS was observed, but will need to be confirmed with final OS analysis. Additional efficacy results for secondary end points are forthcoming. Common treatment-emergent adverse events for 1st-line EVE vs SUN, respectively, were stomatitis (53% vs 57%), fatigue (45% vs 51%), and diarrhea (38% vs 57%). Conclusions: Noninferiority of PFS for 1st-line EVE compared with SUN was not achieved in this randomized phase II trial of mRCC patients. The treatment paradigm remains SUN→EVE since the sequence achieved optimal clinical benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT00903175.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations70
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207