MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized phase II trial of MIBG versus MIBG/vincristine/irinotecan versus MIBG/vorinostat for relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma: A report from the New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy Consortium.

2020· article· en· W3028807982 on OpenAlexaff
Steven G. DuBois, Meaghan Granger, Susan Groshen, Denice Tsao‐Wei, Anasheh Shamirian, Scarlett Czarnecki, Fariba Goodarzian, Rachel Berkovich, Hiroyuki Shimada, Yaël P. Mossé, Suzanne Shusterman, Susan L. Cohn, Kelly C. Goldsmith, Brian Weiss, Gregory A. Yanik, Clare J. Twist, Meredith S. Irwin, Julie R. Park, Araz Marachelian, Katherine K. Matthay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineVincristineIrinotecanClinical endpointRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineNeuroblastomaVorinostatRegimenPhases of clinical researchOncologyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialSurgeryUrologyChemotherapyCyclophosphamideCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10500 Background: 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) remains one of the most active agents for neuroblastoma. It is not clear if putative radiation sensitizers improve upon this activity. The primary aim of this trial was to identify the MIBG treatment regimen with highest response rate among: MIBG monotherapy (Arm A); MIBG/Vincristine/Irinotecan (Arm B); MIBG/Vorinostat (Arm C). The secondary aim was to compare toxicity across arms. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized phase II trial. Patients 1-30 years with relapsed/refractory high-risk neuroblastoma were eligible with at least one MIBG-avid site and adequate autologous stem cells (ASCs). All patients received MIBG 18 mCi/kg on Day 1 and ASC on day 15. Patients on Arm A received only MIBG; patients on Arm B also received vincristine (2 mg/m2) IV on Day 0 and irinotecan (50 mg/m2) IV daily on Days 0-4; patients on Arm C also received vorinostat (180 mg/m2) orally once daily on days -1 to 12. The primary endpoint was response after one course according to NANT response criteria. The trial was designed as a pick-the-winner study with a maximum of 105 eligible and evaluable patients to ensure an 80% chance that the arm with highest response rate is selected, if that response rate is at least 15% higher than the other arms. Results: 114 patients enrolled. Three patients were ineligible and 6 eligible patients never received MIBG, leaving 105 eligible and evaluable patients (36 Arm A; 35 Arm B; and 34 Arm C; 55 boys; median age 6.5 years). 9 patients had received prior MIBG monotherapy, 65 prior irinotecan, and 7 prior vorinostat. After one course, the response rates (Partial Response or better) on Arms A, B, and C were 17% (95% CI 7-33%), 14% (5-31%), and 32% (18-51%). An additional 4, 4, and 7 patients met NANT Minor Response criteria [partial response in one disease category (e.g., bone marrow) and stable disease in other categories] on Arms A, B, and C, respectively. On Arms A, B, and C, rates of any grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicity were 19%, 49% and 32%; rates of grade 3+ diarrhea were 0%, 11%, 0%; and rates of grade 3+ febrile neutropenia were 6%, 11%, and 0%. Conclusions: The combination of vorinostat/MIBG had the highest response rate, with manageable toxicity. Vincristine and irinotecan do not improve the response rate to MIBG and are associated with increased toxicity. These data provide response rates for MIBG monotherapy in a contemporary patient population assessed with current response criteria. Clinical trial information: NCT02035137.

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: 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
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.432
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.050 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207