Patterns of progression and subsequent management of patients with <i>BRCA1/2</i> mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) progressing on olaparib versus placebo: the SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21 trial (NCT01874353).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6070 Background: Olaparib maintenance is a standard treatment of BRCA1/2 mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent EOC. Despite improvement in PFS, olaparib (O) resistance often occurs and the optimal management of post-olaparib progression remains undefined. Methods: Data of patients who participated in the SOLO-2 trial and progressed were analyzed. Primary objective was to depict the patterns of progression of patients treated with O compared to placebo (P). Secondary objectives include description of post-progression treatments. Results: 106/195 (54%) and 80/99 (81%) patients had a RECIST progression in the O and P arms respectively. As permitted in the protocol, 37 (35%) pts continued O despite a RECIST progression and 10 remained on treatment at the date of data base cut-off of the primary endpoint. Median duration of O post progression was 3.2 months (range: 1 to 19.4). In the placebo arm, only 20% of the patients with progressive disease continued placebo during a median of 1.6 months (range:1.1 to 16.1). Patterns of sites of progressive disease were similar in the O and P arms respectively in terms of liver (21% vs 18%), lung (4% vs 3%), lymph node (20% vs 16%) peritoneal (48% vs 32%) or brain metastases (0% vs 2%). Number of sites of relapsing disease were similar in the O and P arm respectively (1 (68% vs 64), ≥2 (32% vs 36%). A total of 54 (51%) patients in the O arm and 42 (53%) in the P arm received subsequent platinum-based therapy. In both arms, 8% received bevacizumab and 6% received no further treatment. Median PFS with first post-study platinum-based and non platinum-based therapy were 7.1 months and 5.6 months respectively. In the P arm, 18 (23) patients received PARP inhibitors following the first subsequent chemotherapy. Conclusions: Patterns of disease progression and subsequent chemotherapy were similar in patients receiving O or P in the SOLO2 trial. Instead of switching to chemotherapy, continuing O at the time of RECIST progression was an option for 35% of the patients. Clinical trial information: NCT01874353.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".