Infigratinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 study in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 gene fusions/translocations: The PROOF trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TPS4155 Background: Cholangiocarcinoma is the most common biliary tract malignancy with approximately 5,000–10,000 new cases annually in the USA. The fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) family plays an important role in cholangiocarcinoma, with FGFR2 gene fusions detected in about 15% of patients with cholangiocarcinoma. Infigratinib is an ATP-competitive, FGFR1–3-selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor. First-line treatment with chemotherapy offers only modest benefit and more effective treatment options are needed. Based on preliminary response data of infigratinib in relapsed/refractory cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions/translocations (Phase 2 Study CBJG398X2204), the PROOF trial is evaluating infigratinib versus gemcitabine + cisplatin in front-line patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 gene fusions/translocations. Methods: Patients with advanced/metastatic or inoperable cholangiocarcinoma are randomized 1:1 to oral infigratinib once daily for 21 days of a 28-day treatment cycle versus IV gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) + cisplatin (25 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment will continue until confirmed progressive disease by central review, intolerance, withdrawal of informed consent, or death. After 8 cycles of gemcitabine + cisplatin, patients can continue treatment if the investigator considers that they are deriving continued benefit. Patients on the gemcitabine + cisplatin arm who progress can cross-over to infigratinib. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS, per RECIST v1.1 central review). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, PFS (investigator determined), overall response rate, disease control rate, duration of response, and safety. Quality of life, PK and exploratory genetic alterations/biomarkers will also be measured. Current status: The study was initiated in February 2019 with planned enrollment of 350 patients with confirmed FGFR2 gene fusions/translocations. Clinical trial information: NCT03773302.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".