MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386800574 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noad147.025

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· W4386800574 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine McBain, 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 Soffetti, Patrick Y. Wen, Timothy F. Cloughesy

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineAdverse effectGliomaGastroenterologyRandomizationClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialHazard ratioSurgeryConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract AIMS Current treatments grade 2 gliomas are not curative and can be associated with short- and long-term toxicities. 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. METHOD In the phase 3 INDIGO 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 06 Sep2022, 331 pts were randomized across 10 countries: 168 to VOR and 163 to PBO. Median PFS by BIRC was 27.7 mos with VOR and 11.1 with PBO (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27, 0.56; 1-sided P=0.000000067). Median TTNI was not reached with VOR and 17.8 mos with PBO (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15, 0.43; 1-sided P=0.000000019). All-grade adverse events (AEs) occurring in >20% pts receiving VOR vs PBO were alanine aminotransferase increased, COVID-19, fatigue, aspartate aminotransferase increase, headache, diarrhea, nausea. Common grade ≥3 AEs (>5%): ALT increased (9.6% vs 0%). CONCLUSIONS VOR significantly improved PFS by BIRC versus PBO with a manageable safety profile. © 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. All rights reserved.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→