MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Real-world outcomes associated with bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

2022· article· en· W4281733446 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon Taylor Moffat, Weidong Kong, Christopher M. Booth, Josée-Lyne Ethier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBevacizumabTopotecanInternal medicinePaclitaxelHazard ratioOncologyOvarian cancerChemotherapyProportional hazards modelDoxorubicinProgression-free survivalCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5555 Background: In the pivotal Aurelia study, addition of bevacizumab (bev) to physician’s choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel, liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan) for platinum-resistant (PL-R) ovarian cancer (OC) was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS; 6.7 vs 3.4 mos; hazard ratio (HR) 0.48, p = 0.001) but not overall survival (OS; 16.6 vs 13.3 mos HR 0.85, p = 0.174); the latter finding may relate to extensive crossover. In an exploratory subgroup analysis by treatment arm, benefits were particularly marked for bev + paclitaxel where median PFS (mPFS) increased from 3.9 to 10.4 mos (HR 0.46; 95%CI 0.30-0.71) and increases in OS approached statistical significance (HR 0.65; 95%CI, 0.42-1.02; 22.4 v 13.2 mos). Here we describe utilization of bev for PL-R OC and outcomes in routine clinical practice. Methods: The Ontario Cancer Registry and the New Drug Funding Program databases were utilized to identify all patients treated with bev plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel, liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan) for PL-R OC following its approval in 2017. Time on treatment (ToT) was defined as time from first to last bev treatment; this was used as a surrogate for PFS in routine practice. Median OS (mOS) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors associated with ToT and OS were identified using a Cox proportional hazard model. A before and after comparison analysis was performed to determine mOS for patients treated pre- (2011-2017) and post-bev (2017-2019) approval. Results: From Oct 2017 to Dec 2019, 180 patients received bev + chemotherapy for first-line PL-R OC. Mean age was 63 years old, and 80% had serous OC. Bev was most often combined with liposomal doxorubicin (64 %) followed by paclitaxel (34%) and topotecan (2%). Median ToT was 3 months and OS was 11 months. ToT and OS were longer in patients who received paclitaxel as chemotherapy backbone (5 mos [ToT]; 14 mos [OS]) than those who received bev with liposomal doxorubicin (2 mos; 9 mos) or topotecan (2 mos; 6 mos). In multivariable models, ToT was superior in patients who received bev + paclitaxel than bev + liposomal doxorubicin (HR 0.40; 95%CI 0.28-0.57; p < 0.0001), and worse with longer time from diagnosis to bev start (1.03; 1.01-1.05; p = 0.0120). OS was also significantly longer in those who received paclitaxel vs liposomal doxorubicin (HR 0.54; 95%CI 0.30-0.98; p = 0.043). In a before and after analysis, patients treated in the pre- (n = 1290) and post-bev (n = 360) era had mOS of 8 and 9 months respectively. Post mOS increased for patients receiving paclitaxel (7 vs 12 months) but not with liposomal doxorubicin (9 vs 7 months). Conclusions: ToT and OS associated with bev for PL-R OC are shorter in a real-world population compared to results reported in AURELIA. ToT and OS were longer with bev + paclitaxel than with other chemotherapy agents.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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