Overall survival with everolimus, sunitinib, and placebo for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
237 Background: Everolimus and sunitinib are approved in the US and EU for treating advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET). No randomized trial has directly compared these treatments for pNET. This study indirectly compared overall survival (OS) with everolimus vs. 1) placebo and 2) sunitinib. Methods: Individual patient data were used from the RADIANT-3 trial of everolimus 10 mg/day vs. placebo (cutoff: April 4, 2010); published summary data were used from the A6181111 trial of sunitinib 37.5 mg/day vs. placebo (cutoff: June 1, 2010). To adjust for cross-trial differences, RADIANT-3 patients were subjected to exclusion criteria used in A6181111 and then re-weighted to match A6181111 in terms of baseline demographics, performance status, time since diagnosis, disease sites, distant metastases and prior therapy. After matching, OS was compared between balanced trial populations for everolimus in RADIANT-3 vs. 1) the placebo arm in A6181111, which had access to sunitinib after early stopping, and 2) the sunitinib arm in A6181111. Progression-free survival (PFS) was also assessed, but was confounded by early stopping of A6181111. Results: Analyses included 394 patients from RADIANT-3 (after excluding 15 with worse performance status than allowed in A6181111 and 1 with missing baseline data) and all 171 patients in A6181111. Before matching, patients in RADIANT-3 had better performance status, more prior use of somatostatin analogues and less prior use of systemic chemotherapy. After matching, these and all other baseline characteristics were well-balanced between trials. Everolimus was associated with prolonged OS vs. placebo in A6181111 (hazard ratio [HR] for death = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.98, p=0.04). No statistically significant difference was observed with everolimus vs. sunitinib in OS (HR for death = 0.81, 95%CI=0.49-1.31) or in PFS (HR for progression = 0.84, 95% CI=0.46-1.53). Conclusions: After adjusting for cross-trial differences, treatment of advanced pNET with everolimus was associated with prolonged OS compared to treatment with placebo.
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 | 0.043 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".