MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

TRYHARD, a randomized phase II trial (RTOG Foundation 3501) of concurrent accelerated radiation plus cisplatin (cis) with or without lapatinib (Lap) for stage III- IV Non-HPV head and neck carcinoma (HNC).

2021· article· en· W3165955961 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart J. Wong, Pedro A. Torres‐Saavedra, Nabil F. Saba, George Shenouda, Jeffrey M. Bumpous, Robert E. Wallace, Christine H. Chung, Adel K. El‐Naggar, Clement K. Gwede, Barbara Burtness, Paul Tennant, Neal Dunlap, Loren K. Mell, Sharon A. Spencer, William Stokes, Darrion Mitchell, Jonathan Harris, Walter J. Curran, Quynh‐Thu Le

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNovartis
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointInterim analysisInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialHazard ratioRadiation therapyStage (stratigraphy)Progression-free survivalOncologySurgeryConfidence intervalChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6014 Background: Chemoradiation (CRT) with cis or anti-EGFR Ab has been shown to improve survival of patients with stage III-IV HNC. Since Lap, a dual EGFR and HER2 inhibitor, has shown effectiveness with CRT in a pilot non-HPV HNC cohort, the RTOG Foundation launched a phase II trial to test the hypothesis that adding Lap to the RT-cis for frontline therapy of stage III-IV Non-HPV HNC improves progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: Patients with stage III-IV carcinoma of the oropharynx (p16-negative), larynx, and hypopharynx, having Zubrod performance of 0-1, and meeting predefined blood chemistry criteria were enrolled after providing consent. Patients were randomized (1:1) to 70 Gy (6 weeks) + 2 cycles of CDDP (q3 weeks) plus either Lap (1500 mg daily, Arm A) or placebo (Arm B) starting 1 week prior to RT and concurrent with RT and for 3 months post RT. PFS was the primary endpoint. The protocol specified 69 PFS events (142 patients) for the final analysis based on HR = 0.65, 80% power, 1-sided alpha 0.20, and one interim efficacy and futility analysis at 50% information. PFS rates between arms for all randomized patients were compared by 1-sided log-rank test (1-sided alpha 0.1803). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Results: From 10/’12 to 04/’17, 142 patients were enrolled, of whom 127 were randomized, 63 to Arm A and 64 to Arm B. Arms A vs B, respectively, were similar in baseline patient characteristics, radiation delivery, completing ≥ 70 Gy (85.7% vs. 82.8%) and cisplatin delivery, completing 200 (±5%) mg/m2 (65.1% vs 70.3%), but dissimilar in Lap/placebo delivery (median dose, 87000 mg vs. 125250 mg). Median follow-up was 4.1 years for surviving patients. The final analysis suggests no improvement in PFS of adding Lap to CRT (HR [A/B]: 0.91, 95% confidence interval CI 0.56-1.46; P= 0.34; 2-year rates: 50.6%, CI 37.5-63.7% vs. 56.2% CI 43.0-69.4%), or in OS (HR: 1.06, CI 0.61-1.86; P = 0.58; 2-year rates: 71.8% CI 60.1-83.5% vs. 76% CI 64.5-87.4%), death within 30 days of therapy (3.3% vs. 3.4%), and overall treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse event rate (86.7% vs. 84.7%). Grade 3-4 mucositis rates on Arm A and Arm B were 21.7% vs. 23.7%, all grade dysphagia and rash rates were 43.3% vs. 59.3%, and 13.3% vs. 6.8%, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of Lap to the radiation-cisplatin platform did not improve progression-free or overall survival in unselected non-HPV HN. Thus, dual EGFR, HER-2 inhibition does not appear to enhance the effects of chemoradiation. Although we showed that accrual to a non-HPV HN specific trial is feasible, new strategies must be investigated to improve the outcome for this poor prognosis HN population.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→