MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase III study of NUC-1031 + cisplatin vs gemcitabine + cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (NuTide:121).

2021· article· en· W3126003668 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer J. Knox, Mairéad G. McNamara, Lipika Goyal, David Cosgrove, Christoph Springfeld, Katrin Marie Sjoquist, Joon Oh Park, Helena Verdaguer, Chiara Braconi, Paul J. Ross, Aimery de Gramont, Rachna T. Shroff, John Zalcberg, Daniel H. Palmer, Juan W. Valle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersNuCana
KeywordsGemcitabineCisplatinMedicineTolerabilityInternal medicineOncologyGallbladder cancerChemotherapyCancerBiliary tract cancerPhases of clinical researchBiliary tractGastroenterologyAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS351 Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) carries a poor prognosis and no first-line treatments are approved. The accepted global standard of care is gemcitabine + cisplatin (GemCis). NUC-1031 is a phosphoramidate transformation of gemcitabine designed to overcome key cancer resistance mechanisms that are associated with gemcitabine. Promising efficacy has been observed with single-agent NUC-1031 in a phase I study in advanced solid tumors and in the phase Ib ABC-08 study of NUC-1031 + cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced BTC. Of 14 patients enrolled in 2 cohorts (NUC-1031 625 mg/m2 or 725 mg/m2 + cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycle), 1 had a CR and 6 had PRs, resulting in an unconfirmed ORR of 50%. This represents an approximate doubling of ORR over SoC. The combination was well-tolerated with no unexpected AEs or DLTs. The RP2D of NUC-1031 with cisplatin was 725 mg/m2. The tolerability profile, together with encouraging efficacy, suggested NUC-1031 + cisplatin may represent a more effective therapy than GemCis for BTC and led to initiation of a global registrational study. Methods: NuTide:121 is a Phase III, open-label, randomized study of NUC-1031 + cisplatin vs GemCis for first-line treatment of advanced BTC. Patients ≥18 years with histologically- or cytologically-confirmed BTC (including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder, or ampullary cancer), who have had no prior systemic chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease, are eligible. A total of 828 patients are being randomized (1:1) to either 725 mg/m2 NUC-1031 or 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine, both with 25 mg/m2 cisplatin, administered on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. Primary objectives are OS and ORR. Secondary objectives include PFS, safety, PK and patient-reported quality of life. In addition to the final analysis, three interim analyses, including two designed to support accelerated approval, are planned. The study has passed an initial safety analysis, with no protocol changes required. NuTide:121 is being conducted at approximately 130 sites across North America, Europe and Asia Pacific countries. Clinical trial information: NCT04163900.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207