MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ROMAN: Phase 3 trial of avasopasem manganese (GC4419) for severe oral mucositis (SOM) in patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced, nonmetastatic head and neck cancer (LAHNC).

2022· article· en· W4403089975 on OpenAlexaff
Carryn M. Anderson, Christopher M. Lee, Joseph Randall Kelley, Gary V. Walker, Neal Dunlap, Voichita Bar‐Ad, Douglas A. Miller, Vernon J. King, Abhinand Peddada, Douglas F. Ciuba, F. Vincent, Brian C. Muzyka, Amanda Gillespie-Twardy, Stephen T. Sonis, Jon Holmlund, Deborah Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOral health in cancer treatment
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityNortheast Cancer CentreHealth Sciences NorthCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMucositisMedicineHead and neck cancerChemoradiotherapyHead and neckInternal medicineCancerOncologySurgeryRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6005 Background: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus cisplatin is an established treatment for LAHNC, but ̃70% of patients develop SOM (WHO grade 3 or 4), limiting their ability to eat solids (grade 3) or liquids (grade 4), and often requiring nutrition by feeding tube. Management focuses on symptoms and supportive care (Elad 2020). There are no US-approved drugs to reduce SOM in LAHNC. A radiotherapy (RT)-induced burst of superoxide initiates oral mucositis (OM) development (Sonis 2004). Avasopasem (GC4419, AVA) is an investigational selective small molecule dismutase mimetic designed to convert superoxide to hydrogen peroxide, which may protect normal cells from, and potentially sensitize cancer cells to, radiation (Riley DP 2006, El-Mahdy 2020). In a randomized, double-blind phase 2b trial, AVA reduced duration and incidence of SOM due to CRT for LAHNC vs placebo (PBO) (Anderson 2019). The present trial (NCT03689712) further assessed safety and efficacy of AVA to reduce SOM due to CRT for LAHNC of the oral cavity (OC) or oropharynx (OP). Methods: Double-blind, PBO-controlled trial; patients receiving 60-72 Gy of IMRT (>50 Gy to ≥2 oral mucosal sites) plus cisplatin (weekly or q3 weeks) were randomized 3:2 to AVA 90 mg vs PBO by 60-minute IV infusion, M-F before each RT fraction. OM by the WHO scale was assessed by trained evaluators biweekly during RT & weekly for 2 weeks thereafter. Primary endpoint: SOM (WHO grade 3 or 4) incidence through the end of IMRT. Secondary endpoints included SOM duration through 2 weeks post-IMRT and grade 4 OM incidence through the end of IMRT. Results: N = 407 (241 AVA/166 PBO); median age 61; 86% male; 82% OP. Statistically significant 16% relative reduction in SOM incidence (54% vs 64%; p = 0.045) and 56% relative reduction in SOM duration (median, 8 vs 18 days; p = 0.002) were observed. Grade 4 incidence was reduced 27% ( p = 0.052). Improvement was seen in multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints (table). Adverse event frequencies (all grade, grade 3+, serious) were comparable between treatment groups without clear AVA-specific toxicity or increase in cisplatin-attributable toxicity. Conclusions: AVA produced statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement of SOM vs PBO that was consistent across multiple measures of SOM, and was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile consistent with expectations for IMRT/cisplatin in LAHNC. Clinical trial information: NCT03689712. PBO AVA AVA vs PBO Relative Δ p value SOM incidence through IMRT 64% 54% 16% 0.045* SOM duration through f/u, median days 18 8 56% 0.002* Gr 4 OM incidence through IMRT 33% 24% 27% 0.052 SOM incidence through 50 Gy 45% 28% 38% < 0.001 SOM incidence through 60 Gy 58% 42% 28% 0.002 SOM incidence through f/u 71% 58% 18% 0.012 SOM onset, median days 38 49 29% 0.002 *statistically significant.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicOral health in cancer treatmentFrench-language works237,207