Updated Overall Survival and Long-Term Safety With Ripretinib Versus Sunitinib in Patients With GI Stromal Tumor: Final Overall Survival Analysis From INTRIGUE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the INTRIGUE phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501 ), adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor previously treated with imatinib were randomly assigned 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily or sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). In the primary analysis, overall survival (OS) was immature. In this study, we report the final planned analysis of OS (key secondary end point), progression-free survival (PFS) on third-line therapy (second PFS; prespecified exploratory end point), and long-term safety. Final OS analysis was prespecified to occur with approximately 200 and ≥145 events in the overall and KIT exon 11 intention-to-treat (ITT) populations, respectively. As of March 15, 2023, there were 211 and 151 OS events in the overall ITT and KIT exon 11 ITT populations, respectively. Median OS was similar between second-line ripretinib and sunitinib in both populations (overall, 35.5 v 31.5 months; KIT exon 11, 35.5 v 32.8 months). Median second PFS (on third-line therapy) for the overall ITT population was similar between the ripretinib and sunitinib arms (7.7 v 7.4 months). Safety was consistent with the primary analysis. OS from this analysis was similar between arms, and second PFS suggests that receiving ripretinib did not adversely affect the PFS of third-line therapy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".