MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase 3 study of ivosidenib vs placebo in locally advanced or metastatic IDH1-mutant conventional chondrosarcoma untreated or previously treated with 1 systemic treatment regimen (CHONQUER).

2025· article· en· W4410795910 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Wagner, Silvia Stacchiotti, C. Debruyne, Abdulazeez Salawu, Jean‐Yves Blay, Fernando Augusto Batista Campos, Hiroaki Hiraga, Antoine Italiano, Akira Kawai, Ganessan Kichenadasse, Yoshihiro Nishida, Seth M. Pollack, Zhe Qu, Evinaa Sellaiah, Ilona Tala, Gabriel Tinoco, Jonathan C. Trent, Karina Costa Maia Vianna, Kan Yonemori, William D. Tap

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersServier
KeywordsMedicineRegimenPlaceboOncologySystemic therapyInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchChemotherapyCancerPathologyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS11582 Background: Conventional chondrosarcoma (CS) is the most common chondrosarcoma subtype, accounting for 85% to 90% of all chondrosarcoma cases. A meta-analysis of 466 patients with CS reported the detection of IDH1/2 mutations in 51.2% of patients (38.7% IDH1 and 12.1% IDH2 mutations, mutually exclusive except for one case). In a phase 1 study (NCT02073994), the long term follow-up with a data cut-off date of 15 September 2022, showed that patients with advanced conventional CS (N = 13) who were treated with the IDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months, a 6-month PFS rate of 53.8%, and an overall response rate (ORR) of 23.1% including 2 partial responses and 1 complete response. Ivosidenib demonstrated manageable toxicity with mostly grade 1 or 2 treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) (Tap et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:11532). The current phase 3 CHONQUER study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ivosidenib treatment in patients with grades 1, 2 and 3 conventional CS. Methods: The CHONQUER study (NCT06127407) is a phase 3, international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of ivosidenib for patients with locally advanced or metastatic IDH1 mutant conventional CS untreated or previously treated with 1 systemic treatment regimen. Key eligibility criteria include a histopathological diagnosis of conventional CS (grades 1, 2, or 3), locally-advanced or metastatic setting not eligible for curative resection; ECOG PS 0-1; measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1); received 0 or 1 prior systemic treatment regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting for CS; radiographic progression/recurrence of disease over a period of 6 months according to RECIST v1.1 and IDH1 gene-mutated disease confirmed by central laboratory testing with the Ion Torrent Oncomine Dx Express Test. A total of 136 patients are planned to be enrolled and will be randomized 1:1 to ivosidenib or a matched placebo control. Randomization will be stratified by disease grade (grade 1 versus 2 versus 3) and locally advanced versus metastatic disease. The primary endpoint is PFS confirmed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BIRC) in grade 1 and 2 patients. The key secondary endpoints include PFS based on BIRC for all randomized patients, overall survival (OS) (both grade 1 and 2 and all randomized patients). Other secondary endpoints include PFS by investigator, overall response, duration of response, time to response, disease control, duration of disease control, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. 92 sites from 12 countries are planned to participate, including North and South America, Europe and Asian countries. Clinical trial information: NCT06127407 .

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)0.001
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207