Tumor Dynamic Model-Based Decision Support for Phase Ib/II Combination Studies: A Retrospective Assessment Based on Resampling of the Phase III Study IMpower150
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Model-based tumor growth inhibition (TGI) metrics are increasingly incorporated into go/no-go decisions in early clinical studies. To apply this methodology to new investigational combinations requires independent evaluation of TGI metrics in recently completed Phase III trials of effective immunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from IMpower150, a positive, randomized, Phase III study of first-line therapy in 1,202 patients with non-small cell lung cancer. We resampled baseline characteristics and longitudinal sum of longest diameters of tumor lesions of patients from both arms, atezolizumab+ bevacizumab+chemotherapy (ABCP) versus BCP, to mimic Phase Ib/II studies of 15 to 40 patients/arm with 6 to 24 weeks follow-up. TGI metrics were estimated using a bi-exponential TGI model. Effect sizes were calculated as TGI metrics geometric mean ratio (GMR), objective response rate (ORR) difference (d), and progression-free survival (PFS), hazard ratio (HR) between arms. Correct and incorrect go decisions were evaluated as the probability to achieve desired effect sizes in ABCP versus BCP and BCP versus BCP, respectively, across 500 replicated subsamples for each design. RESULTS: For 40 patients/24 weeks follow-up, correct go decisions based on probability tumor growth rate (KG) GMR <0.90, dORR >0.10, and PFS HR <0.70 were 83%, 69%, and 58% with incorrect go decision rates of 4%, 12%, and 11%, respectively. For other designs, the ranking did not change with TGI metrics consistently overperforming RECIST endpoints. The predicted overall survival (OS) HR was around 0.80 in most of the scenarios investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Model-based estimate of KG GMR is an exploratory endpoint that informs early clinical decisions for combination studies.
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 | 0.171 | 0.295 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".