Abstract IA20: Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papilloma-virus positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG 1016): A randomized multicenter noninferiority trial*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Patients with HPV-related oropharynx cancer have high survival when treated with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Whether replacement of cisplatin with cetuximab can preserve high survival and reduce toxicity is unknown. We performed a randomized trial comparing survival and toxicity in 987 patients enrolled at 182 health care centers in the US and Canada between July 2011 and July 2014. Methods: Eligibility included histologically confirmed HPV positive carcinoma, clinical stage TI-T2, N2-N3 or T3-T4, N0-N3. Zubrod status 0 or 1. All patients received intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivered in 35 fractions to 70 gray over 6 weeks using 6 fractions per week. High-dose cisplatin at 100 mg/m² was given every 3 weeks for 2 cycles in arm A (standard of care) versus arm B loading dose cetuximab plus weekly cetuximab. Patients were stratified by T category, N category, Zubord performance status, and smoking history. Primary analysis was based on modified intention to treat for all patients meeting eligibility criteria. 849 patients were randomly assigned to radiation plus cetuximab (425) or radiotherapy plus cisplatin (424). Median follow-up is 4.5 years. Results: Radiotherapy plus cetuximab did not meet the non-inferiority criteria for overall survival. Estimated 5-year overall survival was 78% in the cetuximab group versus 85% in the cisplatin group (p=0.016). Progression-free survival was 67% versus 78% (p=0.0002). Local-regional failure was higher in the cetuximab group, 17% versus 10% (p=0.005). High-grade acute toxicity was similar at 77% for both groups. Late toxicity was also similar. Conclusions: For HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, radiotherapy plus cetuximab showed inferior overall survival, progression-free survival, and locoregional control compared with radiation plus cisplatin. This study defines radiation using IMRT plus cisplatin as the standard of care for this population. *Lancet. Vol 393, p 40-50, January 5, 2019 Citation Format: J.A. Ridge, J. Ringash, M. Yao, D.M. Blakaj, M.A. Razaq, A.D. Colevas, J.J. Beitler, C.U. Jones, N.E. Dunlap, S.A. Seaward, S. Spencer, T.J. Galloway, J.J. Dignam, Q.T. Le, M.L. Gillison, E.M. Sturgis, J. Phan, A.M. Trotti, J. Harris, A. Eisbruch, P.M. Harari, D.J. Adelstein, S.A. Koyfman, B. Burtness. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papilloma-virus positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG 1016): A randomized multicenter noninferiority trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-AHNS Head and Neck Cancer Conference: Optimizing Survival and Quality of Life through Basic, Clinical, and Translational Research; 2019 Apr 29-30; Austin, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(12_Suppl_2):Abstract nr IA20.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".