MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Patient self-reporting of tolerability using PRO-CTCAE: A randomized double-blind placebo controlled phase II trial comparing gemcitabine in combination with adavosertib or placebo in women with platinum resistant epithelial ovarian cancer.

2021· article· en· W3170554531 on OpenAlexaff
Ainhoa Madariaga, Sandra A. Mitchell, Tyler Pittman, Lisa Wang, Valerie Bowering, Nisan Kavak, Judy Quintos, Karen Chang, Janelle Ramsahai, Katherine Karakasis, Stephen Welch, Neesha C. Dhani, Stéphanie Lheureux, Amit M. Oza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCancer Care OntarioPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityPlaceboInternal medicineGemcitabineAdverse effectNauseaCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5541 Background: A 4 month improvement in OS was demonstrated when Wee1 inhibitor adavosertib (Ad) and gemcitabine (G; arm A) was compared to G and placebo (P; arm B) in a phase 2 trial in recurrent ovarian cancer (NCT02151292). The patient reported outcome version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) was used to capture self-report of the frequency, severity and/or interference (scored 0-4; higher scores indicating worse symptomatic adverse events [syAEs]). Methods: Ad/P was given orally on D1-2, D8-9, D15-16 with G D1, D8, D15 in a 28-day cycle. English speaking pts in 2 centres completed PRO-CTCAE items electronically in clinic at baseline, D1 and D15 of each cycle and off treatment. An exploratory objective was to characterize syAEs in the first 3 months of therapy. We calculated 12-week area under the curve (AUC12w) as a measure of syAE over time and incremental AUC12w (iAUC12w) for adjustment to baseline syAEs and compared arms A and B using an independent samples t-test. We assessed proportion of scores 3-4 at 6 time-points and compared them using Fisher’s Exact Test at each survey. Results: 51 pts were enrolled and completed ≥1 survey, 47 were evaluable for primary outcome (arm A: 28, B: 19). ECOG status was ≤1 in 44/47 pts. Median number of cycles of therapy were 5 (1-16) in arm A, and 2 (1-16) in B. Survey completion rates were high (arm A 93%, B 95%). Mean AUC12w fatigue severity (A 152 [standard error 9] vs B 112 [10]; p = 0.005) and interference (A 144 [11] vs 98 [15]; p = 0.018), diarrhea frequency (A 70 [12] vs B 33 [9]; p = 0.014), mucositis (A 23 [6] vs B 6 [3]; p = 0.012) and difficulty swallowing severity (A 10 [3] vs B 2 [2]; p = 0.023) were higher in arm A (any grade). There were no statistically significant between-arm differences in abdominal pain, bloating, nausea, vomiting and anxiety. The iAUC12w was significantly higher in arm A vs B for difficulty swallowing severity (A 10.1 [3] vs B -2.7 [4.7]; p = 0.02), mucositis severity (A 19.9 [6.6] vs B -3.1 [6.9]; p = 0.02) and fatigue severity (A 35.2 [8.2] vs B -3.1 [9.8]; p = 0.005). Proportions with high scores (3-4) were only significantly higher at C1D15 for fatigue severity in arm A (A 55% vs B 19%, p = 0.044). No significant differences were seen in other 3-4 scores per survey time. Conclusions: This is the first study evaluating pts self-reported toxicity with adavosertib in a randomized setting, allowing pts self-evaluation of toxicity in the context of improved PFS and OS. Greater fatigue, diarrhea, mucositis and difficulty swallowing were experienced by pts receiving adavosertib and gemcitabine, but score 3-4 reached significance on C1D15 fatigue only. No significant differences were detected in syAE profile for nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating and anxiety. This approach allows objective assessment of pts perception of toxicity with complex therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02151292.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→