MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388588801 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noad179.0333

CTNI-51. A RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND PHASE 3 STUDY OF VORASIDENIB VS PLACEBO IN PATIENTS WITH MUTANT <i>IDH1</i>/<i>2</i> DIFFUSE GLIOMA (INDIGO): EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF VARIANT ALLELE FREQUENCY AND PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL

2023· article· en· W4388588801 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy F. Cloughesy, Ingo K. Mellinghoff, Martin J. van den Bent, Deborah T. Blumenthal, Mehdi Touat, Katherine B. Peters, Jennifer Clarke, Joe Mendez, Shlomit Yust‐Katz, Warren Mason, François Ducray, Yoshie Umemura, Burt Nabors, Matthias Holdhoff, Andreas F. Hottinger, Yoshiki Arakawa, Juan Manuel Sepúlveda-Sánchez, Wolfgang Wick, Riccardo Soffietti, James Perry, Pierre Giglio, Macarena de la Fuente, Elizabeth A. Maher, Sung Choe, Dan Zhao, Shuchi S. Pandya, Lori Steelman, Islam Hassan, Adriana E. Tron, Patrick Y. Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIDH1Internal medicineGliomaPlaceboHazard ratioGastroenterologyIsocitrate dehydrogenaseMucositisOligodendrogliomaOncologyInterim analysisProgression-free survivalRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalAstrocytomaPathologyChemotherapyMutantBiologyGeneticsCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Vorasidenib is an oral, brain-penetrant, inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase (mIDH) 1/2 enzymes. The INDIGO study (NCT04164901) showed significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent review committee (BIRC) with vorasidenib, compared with placebo, in patients with mIDH1/2 adulttype diffuse glioma (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% CI 0.27–0.56; one-sided P = 0.000000067 [Mellinghoff N Engl J Med 2023]). The key secondary endpoint of time-to-next-intervention was also met. METHODS In this double-blind Phase 3 study, patients aged ≥ 12 years with residual/recurrent grade 2 mIDH1/2 oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, measurable non-enhancing disease, and no prior treatment for glioma were randomized 1:1 to receive vorasidenib 40 mg or placebo daily in 28-day cycles. An investigational clinical trial assay centrally confirmed IDH1 R132H/C/G/S/L or IDH2 R172K/M/W/S/G mutation variants. Pretreatment (archival) tumor tissue was analyzed by next-generation sequencing for CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion and other co-mutations (ACE Extended Cancer Panel). RESULTS As of Sep 6, 2022 (preplanned second interim analysis), 168 patients were randomized to vorasidenib and 163 to placebo (median age, 40.0 years; Karnofsky performance scale = 100, 53.5%; oligodendroglioma, 172; astrocytoma, 159; mIDH1, 315; mIDH2, 16). Two patient subgroups were defined by baseline IDH1/2 variant allele frequency (VAF): lower/higher than the median value (0.377). The median PFS results favored vorasidenib over placebo in both subgroups (low VAF, one-sided P = 0.0116; high VAF, one-sided P < 0.0001). Vorasidenib and placebo groups had similar and a low number of co-mutations in known/likely oncogenic genes at baseline (median number of co-mutations across both groups was 4). CDKN2A homozygous deletion was detected in only two participants (both in the placebo group). Additional data will be presented. CONCLUSION In the first randomized Phase 3 study of a targeted therapy in grade 2 mIDH1/2 glioma, vorasidenib prolonged median PFS by BIRC, relative to placebo, irrespective of IDH1/2 VAF.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207