MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404197739 · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2024.101674

Benefit of Avasopasem Manganese on Severe Oral Mucositis in Head and Neck Cancer in the ROMAN Trial: Unplanned Secondary Analysis

2024· article· en· W4404197739 on OpenAlexaff
Carryn M. Anderson, Samuel Salvaggio, Mickaël De Backer, Jean‐Christophe Chiêm, Gary V. Walker, Deborah Saunders, Christopher M. Lee, Neal Dunlap, Eugene P. Kennedy, Robert C. Beardsley, Marc Buyse

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Radiation Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOral health in cancer treatment
Canadian institutionsNortheast Cancer CentreHealth Sciences North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMucositisHead and neck cancerHead and neckCancerGeneral surgeryDentistryInternal medicineSurgeryRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Oral mucositis (OM) is a debilitating side effect of cisplatin and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with head and neck cancer. The phase 3 ROMAN trial showed avasopasem manganese (AVA) significantly decreased individual endpoints of incidence and duration of severe oral mucositis (SOM, World Health Organization [WHO] grade 3-4), with nominal decrease in severity (WHO grade 4) and significant increase in the delay in onset of SOM. We sought to determine the Net Treatment Benefit (NTB) of AVA versus placebo (PBO) using the generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) method. Methods and Materials GPC is a statistical method that permits simultaneous analysis of several prioritized outcomes, comparing all possible pairs of a patient in the active (ie, AVA) group and a patient from the control (ie, PBO) group. NTB is the net benefit across all the outcomes for AVA compared to PBO. Key clinically relevant outcomes from ROMAN were prioritized: (1) WHO grade 4 OM incidence; (2) SOM incidence; (3) days of SOM; (4) days to SOM onset, with 7 days difference defined as the clinical relevance threshold for SOM days and SOM onset. Results GPC analysis of 407 patients (AVA = 241, placebo=166) stratified by cisplatin schedule and treatment setting resulted in 13,969 pairwise comparisons. AVA showed statistically significant net benefit on all 4 key outcomes with a 53.9% probability that AVA would benefit patients versus a 35.0% probability that PBO would; the difference between these probabilities was a NTB of 18.9% ( P = .0012), translating to an AVA number needed to treat of 5.3 patients. All outcomes contributed to NTB, reflecting improvements in SOM incidence, onset and duration, and in grade 4 OM incidence seen in the original ROMAN analysis. Conclusions This GPC analysis shows compelling evidence from the ROMAN trial of AVA's clinical benefit across key parameters of SOM burden.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Radiation OncologySame topicOral health in cancer treatmentFrench-language works237,207