Clinically meaningful outcomes in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a decade of defining and raising the bar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there is no consensus definition for clinically meaningful outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate new treatments for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Since 2014, recommended targets for improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival have been published by several societies, including those from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Clinically Meaningful Outcomes Working Group in 2014, the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) in 2015, and Colorectal Cancer Canada (CCC) consensus statements in 2019. However, evidence from several systematic reviews suggests that in a substantial proportion of RCTs that led to oncology drug approvals, the recommended thresholds of ASCO and ESMO-MCBS were not met. In addition to efficacy and safety, quality of life (QoL) is important to patients with mCRC, especially for those who are receiving later-line therapy or end-of-life care. As such, both ESMO-MCBS and CCC recommend the inclusion of QoL assessments in the design of mCRC clinical trials. Since the publication of the ASCO recommendations in 2014, there has been significant progress in the development of treatment options for patients with refractory mCRC; these include the approvals of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) as a single agent and in combination with bevacizumab, and the approval of fruquintinib. Among the phase III RCTs in third-line mCRC, only the SUNLIGHT trial of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab met all recommended thresholds for clinically meaningful improvements, while also demonstrating a manageable safety profile and slower deterioration in multiple measures of QoL compared with FTD/TPI alone. The results from the SUNLIGHT study show that incremental gains in several clinically meaningful endpoints are achievable, thus raising the bar in defining clinically meaningful outcomes for emerging therapies in refractory mCRC.
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 | 0.394 | 0.595 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".