MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluation of hyperprogression in patients with sarcoma treated with targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy in early-phase clinical trials.

2023· article· en· W4379281242 on OpenAlexaff
Aisha Alshibany, Esmail Mutahar Al-Ezzi, Abha A. Gupta, Abdulazeez Salawu, Geoffrey Alan Watson, Lisa Wang, Philippe L. Bédard, Anna Spreafico, Aaron R. Hansen, Lillian L. Siu, Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineSoft tissue sarcomaContext (archaeology)Clinical trialSarcomaOncologyResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsCancerIncidence (geometry)Adverse effectPhases of clinical researchSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11560 Background: Hyper-progressive disease (HPD) is an adverse outcome with acceleration of tumor growth, often accompanied by clinical deterioration. This phenomenon is described with immunotherapy (IT) but its incidence in sarcoma and/or in the context of targeted therapy (TT) remains unknown. Tumor growth rate (TGR) allows for dynamic evaluation of tumor volume change over time and may complement RECIST. We evaluated HPD in sarcoma patients (pts) treated in early-phase trials by assessing TGR and describing their subsequent clinical outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records from advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) pts enrolled in early phase trials at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between January 2012 and December 2022. TGR was calculated based on tumor measurements taken at pre-baseline, baseline, and on-treatment CT scans. We used the Champiat formula (Clin Cancer Res 2017) to calculate TGR ratio. Primary objective was to describe the incidence of HPD, defined as a TGR ratio of > 50%. Secondary objective was to investigate the correlation between HPD with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified a total of 192 pts involved in STS early phase trials from 2012-2022. Most common histology was leiomyosarcoma seen in 72 pts. Eighty-four pts (43.8%) received TT, 75 (39%) pts received IT-based, and the rest had combined TT/IT regimens (n = 33, 17.2%). The incidence of HPD was 6.8% (n = 13), including IT-based (n = 9) and non-IT-based (n = 4) regimens. HPD was associated with a worse PFS, and OS compared to non-HPD pts (median PFS 1.6m vs 4.6m HR: 5.5, 95%CI 2.8-10.6, P < 0.001; median OS 5.5 vs 16.1 months; HR: 3.7, 95%CI: 2.0-7.1, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, only IT was significantly associated with HPD (OR 3.9, 95%CI: 1.1-13, P = 0.021). There was no association between HPD and new lesions or sarcoma histology subtype. Conclusions: HPD occurs in a small subset of sarcoma patients undergoing clinical trials with TT or IT. Exploring TGR provides clinically meaningful data as it pertains to HPD as it predicts OS and PFS in sarcoma patients undergoing early-phase clinical trials.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→