Infigratinib versus placebo in patients with resected urothelial cancer (UC) bearing FGFR3 mutation or fusion: Primary DFS analysis from the phase 3, randomized PROOF302 study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
629 Background: In the subset of patients with UC bearing alterations in the fibroblast growth factor 3 ( FGFR3) gene, targeted therapies directed at this moiety have shown substantial antitumor effect in the metastatic setting. We examine infigratinib, a potent and selective inhibitor of FGFR3, as adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk resected UC. Methods: In an international multicenter phase III clinical trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral infigratinib (125 mg) or placebo daily for 21 days of a 28-day treatment cycle, for a maximum of 13 cycles or until disease recurrence. Eligible patients had confirmed invasive UC with susceptible FGFR3 alterations and had undergone radical surgery within 120 days of randomization. The primary endpoint of the study was centrally assessed disease-free survival (DFS), with secondary endpoints including investigator-assessed DFS, metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Despite intensive efforts to enroll approximately 218 patients (with 822 patients consented to molecular pre-screening), only 39 patients were enrolled with 20 and 19 patients randomized to receive infigratinib and placebo, respectively. The frequency of FGFR3 alteration was significantly lower than anticipated, occurring in only 19% of patients overall; mutations were observed in 13% of patients with lower tract UC and 30% of patients with upper tract UC. No significant differences were observed in DFS, MFS or OS, and more frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were noted in the experimental arm (35% versus 16%). No fatal adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Our failure to accrue sufficient patients to the current trial precludes any definitive conclusions around the role of infigratinib as adjuvant therapy for FGFR3-altered UC. In the process of study conduct, however, we garnered substantial insights that may aid in the development of future precision oncology trials for adjuvant UC. Clinical trial information: NCT04197986 .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".