MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (<i>FGFR3</i>) alterations in PROOF 302: A phase III trial of infigratinib (BGJ398) as adjuvant therapy in patients (pts) with invasive urothelial carcinoma (UC).

2023· article· en· W4379336470 on OpenAlexaff
Petros Grivas, Siamak Daneshmand, Vladimir Makarov, Joaquim Bellmunt, Srikala S. Sridhar, Guru Sonpavde, Suzanne Cole, Abhishek Tripathi, Bishoy M. Faltas, Seth P. Lerner, Mark T. Fleming, Yohann Loriot, Joshua J. Meeks, Viraj A. Master, Kimberlee Davis, David Friedrich Van Veenhuyzen, Shugufa Afifi, Sumanta K. Pal, Shilpa Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointTolerabilityInternal medicinePlaceboOncologyMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaAdjuvant therapyCancerRandomized controlled trialSurgeryAdverse effectBladder cancerUrothelial carcinomaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4511 Background: Radical surgery with or without (neo)adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy [(N)AC] is standard in fit pts with muscle invasive UC of bladder (UBC) or upper tract (UTUC). However, recurrence rates are high, underscoring the need for novel therapies. Since up to 70% of UTUC and 20% of UBC tumors were reported to harbor FGFR3 alterations, targeting this pathway is a rational approach. Infigratinib is a selective FGFR1–3 inhibitor with efficacy in advanced UC with FGFR3 alterations [Pal et al. 2018]. PROOF 302 investigated the efficacy and safety of adjuvant infigratinib vs placebo in pts with high-risk invasive UC. Methods: PROOF 302 was a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial for pts with high-risk invasive UTUC or UBC (≤15%) with FGFR3 alteration (i.e. mutation, gene fusion / translocation) with residual (≥ypT2 and/or ypN+) tumor after NAC, or pts ineligible for, or refusing, cisplatin-based AC, ≤120 days post-surgery. Pts were randomized 1:1 to infigratinib 125 mg or placebo daily on days 1–21 every 28 days for up to 52 weeks or until recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Primary endpoint: centrally reviewed disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints: investigator-assessed DFS, metastasis-free survival, overall survival, safety/tolerability. Exploratory endpoints: QOL, pharmacokinetics, genomic analysis of tumor and cfDNA. Assessment of genomic alterations was pursued using descriptive statistics. Results: We present the results of the genomic analysis of radical surgery tissues from pts screened for the trial using the FoundationOne platform. Out of 617 pts screened, 188 (30.5%) had alterations in FGFR 1-4 genes: 102/237 (43%) in UTUC, 85/369 (23%) in MIBC and 1/11 (9%) with unknown tumor origin. Of these 188 pts, median age 74 (32-90 years), 76% were male, 55% had UTUC, 44% had UBC. Genomic alterations are shown. In UTUC, FGFR3 had 56% single-nucleotide variations (SNV) and insertions/deletions (INDELS), 40% amplifications and 70% structural variants (SV). In UBC, FGFR3 had 44% SNV and INDELS, 60% amplifications and 30% SV. Conclusions: FGFR3 alterations were seen in only 19% of all pts screened for PROOF-302, a trial that was enriched for UTUC: 71/237 (30%) of UTUC and 48/369 (13%) of UBC. The trial was stopped early by the sponsor, but the genomic analysis provides insights into the prevalence of FGFR3 alterations; assessment of correlations with the primary/secondary endpoints is ongoing. The nature and frequency of co-occurring alterations in tissue samples is being investigated to help inform combination therapy strategies and putative resistance mechanisms. Clinical trial information: NCT04197986 . [Table: see text]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→