MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Overall survival analysis from the ADAURA trial of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with resected EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) stage IB–IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2023· article· en· W4379662232 on OpenAlexaff
Roy S. Herbst, Masahiro Tsuboi, Terufumi Kato, Margarita Majem, Christian Grohé, Jie Wang, Jonathan W. Goldman, Shun Lü, Wu‐Chou Su, Filippo de Marinis, Frances A. Shepherd, Ki Hyeong Lee, Nhieu Le, Arunee Dechaphunkul, Dariusz M. Kowalski, Lynne Poole, Marta Stachowiak, Yuri Rukazenkov, Yi‐Long Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsimertinibMedicineInternal medicineOncologyT790MHazard ratioAdjuvantClinical endpointPlaceboLung cancernon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)Stage (stratigraphy)Confidence intervalClinical trialCancerAdenocarcinomaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA3 Background: Osimertinib is a third-generation, central nervous system (CNS) active EGFR-TKI, that potently and selectively inhibits EGFR-TKI sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. In the primary analysis from the Phase III ADAURA study (NCT02511106), adjuvant osimertinib demonstrated a clinically meaningful, statistically significant, and practice-changing disease-free survival (DFS) benefit vs placebo in patients with completely resected EGFRm (ex19del/L858R) NSCLC ± adjuvant chemotherapy. In an updated DFS analysis, with 2 years additional follow-up, DFS and CNS DFS benefit with adjuvant osimertinib were sustained (stage II–IIIA DFS hazard ratio [HR] 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18, 0.30; stage IB–IIIA DFS HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.21, 0.34; stage II–IIIA CNS DFS HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.14, 0.42), with a tolerable safety profile observed over the extended treatment duration. Here, we report the planned final overall survival (OS) analysis from ADAURA. Methods: Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years [≥20 in Japan and Taiwan], WHO PS 0/1 with completely resected EGFRm (ex19del/L858R) stage IB, II or IIIA [AJCC/UICC 7th edition] NSCLC; adjuvant chemotherapy allowed) were randomized 1:1 to osimertinib 80 mg once daily or placebo until disease recurrence, treatment completion (3 years), or a discontinuation criterion was met. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed DFS in stage II–IIIA. Key secondary endpoints: DFS in stage IB–IIIA, OS and safety. Data cut-off: January 27, 2023. Results: Globally, 682 patients were randomized; osimertinib n=339, placebo n=343. Adjuvant osimertinib significantly improved OS vs placebo. In patients with stage II–IIIA disease, OS HR was 0.49 (95% CI 0.33, 0.73; p=0.0004; 100/470 events, 21% maturity); 5-year OS rate was 85% with osimertinib vs 73% with placebo. Median follow-up for OS in stage II–IIIA was 59.9 months (osimertinib) and 56.2 months (placebo). In the overall population (stage IB–IIIA), OS HR was 0.49 (95% CI 0.34, 0.70; p<0.0001; 124/682 events, 18% maturity); 5-year OS rate was 88% with osimertinib vs 78% with placebo, with a median follow-up for OS of 60.4 months (osimertinib) and 59.4 months (placebo). Median OS was not reached in either population or treatment group. Conclusions: Adjuvant osimertinib demonstrated an unprecedented, highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful OS benefit in patients with EGFRm stage IB–IIIA NSCLC after complete tumor resection, with or without adjuvant chemotherapy. ADAURA is the first global Phase III study to demonstrate a statistically significant DFS and OS benefit with targeted treatment for patients with EGFRm stage IB–IIIA NSCLC. Clinical trial information: NCT02511106 .

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207