MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200103813 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdab112.008

CLRM-09. INCORPORATING EXTERNAL CONTROL ARM IN MDNA55 RECURRENT GLIOBLASTOMA REGISTRATION TRIAL

2021· article· en· W3200103813 on OpenAlex
Ruthanna Davi, Antara Majumdar, Martin Bexon, Nicholas Butowski, Chandtip Chandhasin, Melissa Coello, Sunit Das, Fahar Merchant, Nina Merchant, David A. Reardon, Martin Roessner, John H. Sampson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsPharma Medica Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingConfidence intervalHazard ratioInternal medicineOncologyLogistic regressionClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Drug development in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (rGBM) is challenging. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs) short survival horizons and limited life-prolonging treatment options may delay accrual and introduce bias through differential dropout of control patients. Comparing results of a single-arm Phase 2b trial of intratumoral delivery of MDNA55 (an interleukin-4 receptor targeted fusion protein) to an external control arm, we sought early efficacy insights and consideration by the FDA of incorporating an ECA in a Phase 3 registrational trial. METHODS Using propensity score weighting, we compared rGBM patients from the Phase 2b trial (NCT02858895) (2017-2019) to patients from rGBM registries who had received standard of care therapies (2011-2019) and met eligibility requirements. Propensity scores were estimated using a logistic regression model with 11 covariates. We compared the propensity score weighted groups according to demographic and disease attributes before and after weighting and compared overall survival between the two groups. RESULTS Through propensity score weighting, 43 (98%, 43/44) MDNA55 patients and 40.80 weighted ECA patients (from 62 unweighted registry patients) were identified for comparison. MDNA55 and ECA patients were balanced on all baseline characteristics (i.e., standardized mean difference ≤ 0.15). Compared to ECA patients, MDNA55 patients had a 37% lower hazard of death (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.39,1.02). CONCLUSION In advance of a Phase 3 trial, comparison of Phase 2b trial results to an ECA suggests that MDNA55 may be efficacious in rGBM. In view of the known challenges associated with drug development for rGBM, these results provided a proof-of-concept for the design of a novel hybrid Phase 3 trial. This planned Phase 3 trial incorporates propensity score weighting to create a composite hybrid randomized and external control arm, an approach preferred by the FDA over full replacement of a randomized control with an external control.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.253 · 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