MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409676766 · doi:10.1200/jco-24-01606

ADAGIO: A Phase IIb, Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter Study Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Adavosertib (AZD1775) as Treatment for Recurrent or Persistent Uterine Serous Carcinoma

2025· article· en· W4409676766 on OpenAlexaff
Joyce F. Liu, Nicoletta Colombo, Amit M. Oza, Jean‐Sébastien Frenel, Bradley R. Corr, Maria M. Rubinstein, Nicole Nevadunsky, Stéphanie Lheureux, Lydia Gaba, Lucía González Cortijo, Vanda Salutari, Benoît You, Sarah Chiang, Mark J. O’Connor, Lenka Oplustil O'Connor, Didier Meulendijks, Mahmuda Khatun, Dana Ghiorghiu, Ana Oaknin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineRegimenTolerabilityNauseaNeutropeniaDiscontinuationClinical endpointAdverse effectAnemiaOncologyChemotherapy regimenGastroenterologyProgression-free survivalPhases of clinical researchChemotherapySurgeryClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE This phase IIb, single-arm, multicenter, global study (ADAGIO; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04590248 ) assessed the efficacy and safety of adavosertib in patients with recurrent/persistent uterine serous carcinoma (USC) who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS Eligible patients were age 18 years and older and had histologically confirmed recurrent/persistent USC, previously treated with at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, and with evidence of measurable disease. Adavosertib was administered orally at 300 mg once daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 of a 21-day cycle until discontinuation criteria were met. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and tolerability. Biomarkers previously associated with adavosertib response in other settings were assessed in archival tissue samples. RESULTS In 104 evaluable patients, one complete response and 26 partial responses were observed, for an ORR by BICR of 26.0% (95% CI, 17.9 to 35.5). Median DoR was 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 8.3); median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 3.9). Biomarker analysis identified no single predictive alteration for adavosertib response, although a trend was observed for CCNE1 amplification or high cyclin E1 protein expression. Most patients (97.2%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), most frequently diarrhea (59.6%), nausea (59.6%), and anemia (58.7%). Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 60.6% of patients, with neutropenia (21.1%) and fatigue (13.8%) most common. 17.4% of patients discontinued adavosertib due to AEs (treatment-related in 14.7%). CONCLUSION Adavosertib showed some antitumor activity in patients with recurrent/persistent USC. However, at 300 mg once daily dosing, it was not well tolerated in this population. Exploratory biomarker studies suggest CCNE1 /cyclin E1 expression may enrich for response to Wee1 inhibition in USC.

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)0.002
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.337
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207