Interim analysis (IA) of OPTIC: A dose-ranging study of three ponatinib (PON) starting doses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7502 Background: In PACE (NCT01207440) heavily pretreated patients (pts) with chronic-phase CML (CP-CML) had deep, lasting responses to PON; long-term follow-up showed increasing rates of arterial occlusive events (AOEs). We present IA results from OPTIC (NCT02467270), evaluating the association between PON exposure, efficacy, and safety, and response-based dose reduction in pts with CP-CML. Methods: This ongoing, multicenter, randomized phase 2 trial enrolled pts with CP-CML resistant or intolerant to ≥2 TKIs or with a T315I mutation to receive PON at a starting dose of 45 mg (cohort A), 30 mg (B), and 15 mg (C) qd. Doses were reduced to 15 mg qd on achievement of ≤1% BCR-ABL1IS in A/B. Primary endpoint: 12 mo ≤1% BCR-ABL1IS; secondary endpoints include cytogenetic and molecular response and AOE, VTE, and TEAE rates. Results are descriptive at this IA and will be inferential by adjusting multiplicity across 3 cohorts at final analysis. Results: 283 pts were randomized (A/B/C: n = 94/95/94); median age 48 y (18‒81 y). 26% had hypertension history; 2/43/55% received 1/2/≥3 TKIs; 40% had ≥1 baseline (BL) mutations, with 23% T315I. At IA data cutoff (20 Jul 2019), 162 pts (57%; n = 57/51/54) remained on study treatment. Among 282 pts in the safety population, median duration of exposure was ≈1 y (A/B/C, 12.9/11.2/11.0 mo). At 12 mo, 39% (95% CI, 27.6, 50.6), 27% (17.6, 39.1), and 26% (16.5, 38.6) in A, B, and C, respectively, achieved ≤1% BCR-ABL1IS. Additional efficacy in Table. Dose reductions due to efficacy (A/B): 35/21%. Most common TEAEs (any grade/≥3): thrombocytopenia 39/27%, neutropenia 25/17%. AOEs/serious AOEs were reported by (A, B, C) 5%/2%, 4%/3%, and 1%/0%. Dose reductions due to TEAEs: (A/B/C): 44/31/28%; discontinuations due to TEAEs: 18/15/14%. There were 4 (1.4%) on-study deaths; A, sudden death, n = 2; C, pneumonia, n = 2; no deaths were due to AOEs. Clinical trial information: NCT01207440 . Conclusions: OPTIC IA shows a trend toward dose-dependent efficacy and safety and may provide a refined understanding of the PON benefit:risk profile and its relation to dose. Data from longer follow-up may support an alternate dosing regimen for pts with CP-CML. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".