MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OPTIC primary analysis: A dose-optimization study of 3 starting doses of ponatinib (PON).

2021· article· en· W3168603500 on OpenAlexaff
Jörge E. Cortes, Jane F. Apperley, Elza Lomaia, Beatriz Moiraghi, Maria Undurraga Sutton, Carolina Pavlovsky, Charles Chuah, Tomasz Sacha, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Charles A. Schiffer, James McCloskey, Andreas Hochhaus, Philippe Rousselot, Gianantonio Rosti, Hugues de Lavallade, Michael J. Mauro, Tracey Hall, Vickie Lu, Shouryadeep Srivastava, Michael W. Deininger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePonatinibClinical endpointInternal medicineRegimenAdverse effectGastroenterologyDasatinibRandomized controlled trialMyeloid leukemiaImatinib

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7000 Background: PON, a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), demonstrated deep and long-lasting responses and survival in patients (pts) with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) resistant/intolerant to second-generation TKI therapy (PACE; NCT01207440); post hoc analysis suggested a relationship between dose and both adverse events and response. Here we present the primary analysis of OPTIC (NCT02467270), an ongoing, randomized, phase 2 trial with a novel response-based dosing regimen of PON in pts with resistant/intolerant CP-CML. Methods: Pts with CP-CML resistant/intolerant to ≥2 TKIs or with the BCR-ABL1 T315I mutation were randomized to PON starting doses of 45 mg (cohort A; 45 mg → 15 mg), 30 mg (B; 30 mg →15 mg), and 15 mg (C) once daily. Doses were reduced to 15 mg with achievement of ≤1% BCR-ABL1IS in cohorts A and B. The primary endpoint is ≤1% BCR-ABL1IS at 12 mo; secondary endpoints include cytogenetic and molecular responses and safety outcomes. AOEs were adjudicated prospectively by an independent review committee. Results: 283 pts were randomized (A/B/C: n=94/95/94) and had the following baseline characteristics: median age 48 y (18‒81 y); 98% received ≥2 (55% ≥3) TKIs; 99% had resistant disease; 40% had ≥1 baseline mutations (23% T315I). At the primary analysis with 32 mo median follow-up, 134 pts (47%; n=50/41/43) remained on treatment and 204 pts (72%) had PON exposure ≥12 mo. At 12 mo, 44% (41/93) in A, 29% (27/93) in B, and 23% (21/91) in C achieved ≤1% BCR-ABL1IS (Table); primary endpoint was met by cohort A. Dose reductions to 15 mg after achieving response (A/B) were 48/29%. Most common grades ≥3 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia, 27%; neutropenia, 17%; and anemia, 7%. AOEs/serious AOEs were reported in cohorts A (10%/4%), B (5%/4%), and C (3%/3%). Dose reductions or discontinuations for TEAEs (A/B/C) were 46/35/32% and 19/16/14%, respectively. Conclusions: The OPTIC primary analysis demonstrates the optimal benefit:risk profile for PON was achieved with a response-based dosing regimen starting with 45 mg/d, followed by dose reduction to 15 mg/d upon achieving ≤ 1% BCR-ABL1IS; 30 mg→15 mg and 15 mg cohorts may provide benefit, especially in pts without T315I mutation (Table). The observed ≤1% BCR-ABL1IS responses are supported by robust survival outcomes in pts with CP-CML resistant to second-generation BCR-ABL1 TKI therapy, both with and without BCR-ABL1 mutations. Clinical trial information: NCT02467270. [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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207