MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Time to quality of life (QoL) improvement or deterioration in patients (pts) with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (pA/R EC) treated with dostarlimab plus chemotherapy in the ENGOT-EN6-NSGO/GOG-3031/RUBY trial.

2025· article· en· W4410816026 on OpenAlexaff
Florian Heitz, Lyndsay Willmott, Hanne F. Mathiesen, Lucy Gilbert, Alberto A. Mendivil, Laura Zavallone, Ashley Stuckey, Zoltán Novàk, John P. Diaz, A.M. Thijs, Michael Teneriello, Mitchell I. Edelson, Robert W. Holloway, Amy J. Armstrong, Barbara M. Buttin, Matthew A. Powell, Bernd Westermayer, Qin Shen, Mansoor Raza Mirza, Kari L. Ring

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerQuality of life (healthcare)ChemotherapyInternal medicineOncologyCancerGynecologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5600 Background: In Part 1 of the phase 3 RUBY trial (NCT03981796) in pts with pA/rEC, dostarlimab + carboplatin-paclitaxel (DOST+CP) significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival vs placebo (PBO)+CP. Patient-reported outcomes were a secondary endpoint. Here we present a post hoc analysis comparing timing of QoL improvement or deterioration by treatment. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive DOST+CP or PBO+CP Q3W (6 cycles) followed by DOST or PBO monotherapy Q6W for ≤3 y. QoL was collected at each visit. Using data from the Sept 22, 2023 data cut (median follow-up 37.2 mo), analyses on time to first QoL improvement (TTI1) or deterioration (TTD1) were conducted for the EORTC QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Endometrial Cancer 24 (EN24) assessments using Cox regressions. Improvement or deterioration was classified ≥10-point change in the appropriate direction, per domain, from baseline. Results are reported for the primary study populations (overall and mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high [dMMR/MSI-H]). Results: A total of 494 pts were randomized, of which 118 were dMMR/MSI-H. For all QLQ-C30 and EN24 domains, TTI1 was similar between arms except pain in the overall population and role function in the dMMR/MSI-H population which reached nominal significance for earlier improvement in the DOST+CP arm (Table). The overall population had similar TTD1 in both arms, while time to deterioration was delayed in the DOST+CP arm for several domains (eg, global QoL, pain) in the dMMR/MSI-H population. Conclusions: With over 3 years of follow-up, DOST+CP was comparable to PBO+CP for TTI1 and TTD1 in the overall population of the RUBY trial and TTD1 was delayed in several QoL domains in the dMMR/MSI-H population. These results on patient experience of treatment further support the efficacy and safety data of dostarlimab for use in patients with pA/rEC. Clinical trial information: NCT03981796 . Overall population dMMR/MSI-H population DOST+CP (N=245)n PBO+CP(N=249)n HR, P value DOST+CP(N=53)n PBO+CP(N=65)n HR, P value Time to first improvementPainRole function 154111 13197 1.37, P =0.0081.28, P =0.076 3232 3726 1.20, P =0.4421.67, P =0.048 Time to first deteriorationGlobal QoLRole functionSocial functionPainSexual interestSexual activitySexual enjoymentUrological symptoms 194203200202126114105173 222219219218157143140201 0.85, P =0.1090.97, P =0.7960.97, P =0.7630.86, P =0.1190.82, P =0.1040.81, P =0.1020.77, P =0.0440.83, P =0.073 3336333719151330 5757575540343152 0.61, P =0.0270.58, P =0.0150.60, P =0.0200.63, P =0.0310.38, P =0.0010.42, P =0.0050.56, P =0.0920.50, P =0.003 n=number of patients with events. CP, carboplatin-paclitaxel; dMMR, mismatch repair deficient; DOST, dostarlimab; MSI-H, microsatellite instability-high; PBO, placebo.

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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→