MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized comparisons of bevacizumab (B) and irinotecan (I), added to temozolomide (T), in children with relapsed or refractory high-risk neuroblastoma (RR-HRNB): First survival results of the ITCC-SIOPEN BEACON-Neuroblastoma phase II trial.

2020· article· en· W3031848108 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Wheatley, Grace Holt, Cormac Owens, Jennifer Laidler, Dominique Valteau‐Couanet, Marion Gambart, Victoria Castel, Natasha K. A. van Eijkelenburg, Aurora Castellano, Karsten Nysom, Nicolas U. Gerber, Geneviève Laureys, Ruth Ladenstein, Guy Makin, Sucheta Vaidya, Estelle Thébaud, Pamela Kearns, Andrew D.J. Pearson, Lucas Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsMedicineBevacizumabInternal medicineIrinotecanHazard ratioRefractory (planetary science)Progression-free survivalOncologyChemotherapyRandomized controlled trialTopotecanSurgeryGastroenterologyConfidence intervalCancerColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10501 Background: BEACON is a randomized phase 2 trial assessing whether inhibiting angiogenesis with bevacizumab adds to the activity of chemotherapy and evaluating chemotherapy regimens for children with RR-HRNB. Methods: Patients with RR-HRNB were eligible. There were randomizations (rand), in a 3x2 factorial design, to: T, IT or topotecan (To)-T, +/- B. Toxicity and response were reported in 2019 (ASCO, ESMO). Survival outcomes – progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) – for the I and B rands are reported here (To rand is still open). The B rand used a relaxed alpha (1-sided p=0.2) for PFS as its phase 2 success criterion; the I rand was Bayesian. Cox model hazard ratios (HR) <1.0 indicate benefit for I or B. Heterogeneity tests (HT) assessed interactions between B and I. Analysis was intention-to-treat. Results: From 2013-19, 160 patients were randomized to B v. no B, including 121 to I v. no I, with: median age 5.8 years; 113 and 47 measurable and evaluable disease; 67 and 93 refractory and relapsed disease; 35 had MYCN amplification. Median follow-up was 15.4 months. PFS and OS are shown in the table. In the main comparisons (I v. no I, B v. no B), I improved PFS and OS (98% probability that true HR<1.0 for both) and B just met its success criterion (PFS: 1p=0.20; OS: 1p=0.19). However, there was some, but not conclusive, evidence of a positive interaction between B and I for both PFS (HT: p=0.06) and OS (HT: p=0.12). If real, this would suggest that adding either I (IT) or B (BT) to T does not improve outcome, but adding both (BIT) does. Twice as many patients had serious adverse events with BIT (57%) than with T (26%) or IT (27%), with BT at 40%. Conclusions: The BEACON results show that single agent T is suboptimal. Statistical uncertainty about an interaction between I and B means two further interpretations are possible: 1) IT and possibly BT are better than T; 2) IT and BT are not better than T, but I and B together (BIT) are better. Hence, a definitive conclusion on the best combination(s) to take forward is not currently possible and further randomized evaluation is needed. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN40708286. [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 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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.323 · 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