MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

INDIGO: A global, randomized, double-blinded, phase 3 study of vorasidenib versus placebo in patients with residual or recurrent grade 2 glioma with an IDH1/2 mutation.

2023· article· en· W4379646000 on OpenAlexaff
Ingo K. Mellinghoff, Martin J. van den Bent, Deborah T. Blumenthal, Mehdi Touat, Katherine B. Peters, Jennifer Clarke, Joe Mendez, Liam Welsh, Warren Mason, Andreas F. Hottinger, Juan Manuel Sepúlveda-Sánchez, Wolfgang Wick, Riccardo Soffietti, Steven Schoenfeld, Dan Zhao, Shuchi S. Pandya, Lori Steelman, Islam Hassan, Patrick Y. Wen, Timothy F. Cloughesy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersServier
KeywordsMedicineGliomaInternal medicineClinical endpointInterim analysisOligodendrogliomaPlaceboRandomizationHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialSurgeryOncologyAstrocytomaPathologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA1 Background: Grade 2 gliomas are slowly progressive, malignant brain tumors with a poor long-term prognosis. Current treatments (surgery followed by observation or adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy) are not curative and can be associated with short- and long-term toxicities. Mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 or 2 occur in approximately 80% and 4% of grade 2 gliomas, respectively, and are a disease defining characteristic in the World Health Organization (WHO) 2021 definition. Vorasidenib (VOR) – an oral, brain-penetrant, dual inhibitor of mutant (m)IDH1/2 enzymes has shown a tolerable safety profile and preliminary clinical activity in phase 1 studies. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (NCT04164901) patients (pts) were randomized 1:1 to receive VOR 40 mg daily or placebo (PBO) daily in 28-day cycles. Patients were stratified by 1p19q status and baseline tumor size. Key eligibility criteria included: age ≥12; KPS >80; residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1m or IDH2m oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma; measurable non-enhancing disease; no prior treatment for glioma with most recent surgery 1-5 years from randomization; and not in immediate need of chemotherapy/radiation. Primary endpoint: radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent radiology committee (BIRC). Key secondary endpoint: time to next intervention (TTNI). Results: As of 6Sep2022 (2 nd planned interim analysis data cutoff), 331 pts were randomized across 10 countries: 168 to VOR and 163 to PBO. Of the 331 pts: median age: 40.4 years (range, 16 to 71); KPS =100: 53.5%; histological subtype: oligodendroglioma: 172 and astrocytoma: 159; median time from last surgery until randomization: 2.4 years. Two hundred twenty-six (68.3%) pts remained on treatment (131VOR; 95PBO). PFS by BIRC was statistically significant in favor of the VOR arm (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, (0.27, 0.56); P=0.000000067). Median PFS: VOR: 27.7 mos; PBO: 11.1 mos. TTNI was statistically significant in favor of the VOR arm (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, (0.15, 0.43); P=0.000000019). Median TTNI: PBO: 17.8 mos; VOR: not reached. All reported P values are one-sided. All-grade adverse events (AEs) occurring in >20% pts receiving VOR vs PBO were alanine aminotransferase increased (38.9% vs 14.7%), COVID-19 (32.9% vs 28.8%), fatigue (32.3% vs 31.9%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (28.7% vs 8.0%), headache (26.9% vs 27.0%), diarrhea (24.6% vs 16.6%), nausea (21.6% vs 22.7%). Common grade ≥3 AEs (>5%): ALT increased (9.6% vs 0%). Conclusions: This is the first prospective, randomized phase 3 study of a targeted therapy in grade 2 mIDH glioma. VOR significantly improved PFS by BIRC compared with PBO with a manageable safety profile. These data demonstrate the clinical benefit of VOR in this pt population for whom chemotherapy and radiotherapy are being delayed. Clinical trial information: NCT04164901 .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207