MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403119976 · doi:10.1200/jco.24.00055

INTEGRATE IIa Phase III Study: Regorafenib for Refractory Advanced Gastric Cancer

2024· article· en· W4403119976 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Pavlakis, Kohei Shitara, Katrin Marie Sjoquist, Andrew Martin, Anthony Jaworski, Niall C. Tebbutt, Yung‐Jue Bang, Thierry Alcindor, Chris J. O’Callaghan, Andrew Strickland, Sun Young Rha, Keun‐Wook Lee, Jin-Soo Kim, Li‐Yuan Bai, Hiroki Hara, Do‐Youn Oh, Sonia Yip, John Zalcberg, Timothy Price, John Simes, David S. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegorafenibMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineHazard ratioClinical endpointCohortRefractory (planetary science)Progression-free survivalOncologyQuality of life (healthcare)GastroenterologyCancerSurgeryConfidence intervalOverall survivalClinical trialColorectal cancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE Treatment options for refractory advanced gastric and esophagogastric junction cancer (AGOC) are limited. Regorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in the INTEGRATE I phase II trial. INTEGRATE IIa was designed to examine whether regorafenib improved overall survival (OS). METHODS A double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial compared regorafenib and best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo and BSC for participants with confirmed evaluable metastatic/advanced AGOC who failed ≥two prior therapies on a 2:1 random assignment, stratified by tumor location, geographic region (Asia v rest of world), and prior vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. The primary end point was OS. Treatment efficacy on OS was first tested in the pooled INTEGRATE I + INTEGRATE IIa cohort and, if significant, then in the INTEGRATE IIa cohort. Secondary end points were PFS, objective response rate, safety, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS INTEGRATE IIa enrolled 251 participants: 157 from Asia and 94 from rest of world and 169 received regorafenib and 82 received placebo. No significant heterogeneity was observed between INTEGRATE I and INTEGRATE IIa studies on OS. Pooled OS analysis hazard ratio (HR) was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.87; P = .001; 361 events). INTEGRATE IIa alone OS HR was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P = .006; 238 events), the median OS was 4.5 months versus 4.0 months, and 12-month survival rates were 19% and 6%, for regorafenib versus placebo, respectively. After a preplanned adjustment for multiplicity, there were no statistically significant differences across regions or other prespecified subgroups. Regorafenib improved PFS (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.70]; P < .0001) and delayed deterioration in global QoL (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]; P = .0043). The toxicity profile was consistent with that of previous reports. CONCLUSION Regorafenib improves survival compared with placebo in refractory AGOC.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207