MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327675500 · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37084-w

Clinical outcome and biomarker assessments of a multi-centre phase II trial assessing niraparib with or without dostarlimab in recurrent endometrial carcinoma

2023· article· en· W4327675500 on OpenAlexafffund
Ainhoa Madariaga, Swati Garg, Naïri Tchrakian, Neesha C. Dhani, Waldo Jiménez, Stephen Welch, Helen Mackay, Josée-Lyne Ethier, Lucy Gilbert, Xuan Li, Angela Rodríguez, Lucy Chan, Valerie Bowering, Blaise Clarke, Tong Zhang, I. P. King, Gregory S. Downs, Tracy Stockley, Lisa Wang, Smitha Udagani, Amit M. Oza, Stéphanie Lheureux

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreKingston Health Sciences CentreHealth Sciences CentreMcGill University Health CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreJuravinski Cancer CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreRoyal Victoria HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersGovernment of OntarioOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer FoundationAmerican Society of Clinical OncologyConquer Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePTENOncologyInternal medicineClinical endpointCohortClinical trialBiomarkerEndometrial cancerCancerPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This multi-centre, non-randomized, open-label, phase II trial (NCT03016338), assessed niraparib monotherapy (cohort 1, C1), or niraparib and dostarlimab (cohort 2, C2) in patients with recurrent serous or endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR), with ≥5/22 overall considered of interest. Secondary outcomes were safety, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, progression free survival and overall survival. Translational research was an exploratory outcome. Potential biomarkers were evaluated in archival tissue by immunohistochemistry and next generation sequencing panel. In C1, 25 patients were enrolled, and CBR was 20% (95% CI: 9-39) with median clinical benefit duration of 5.3 months. The ORR was 4% (95% CI: 0-20). In C2, 22 patients were enrolled, and the CBR was 31.8% (95% CI: 16-53) with median clinical benefit duration of 6.8 months. The ORR was 14% (95% CI: 3-35). No new safety signals were detected. No significant association was detected between clinical benefit and IHC markers (PTEN, p53, MMR, PD-L1), or molecular profiling (PTEN, TP53, homologous recombination repair genes). In conclusion, niraparib monotherapy did not meet the efficacy threshold. Niraparib in combination with dostarlimab showed modest activity.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207