MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

FIRST/ENGOT-OV44: A phase 3 clinical trial of dostarlimab (dost) and niraparib (nira) in first-line (1L) advanced ovarian cancer (aOC).

2025· article· en· W4411025709 on OpenAlexaff
Anne-Claire Hardy-Bessard, Éric Pujade-Lauraine, Richard G. Moore, François Montestruc, Andrés Redondo, Mansoor Raza Mirza, Nataliya Volodko, Tudor–Eliade Ciuleanu, Lucy Gilbert, Ram Eitan, Flora Zagouri, Sandro Pignata, Rosalind Glasspool, Jacobus Pfisterer, Rébécca Phaëton, Charles Anderson, Manuel Rodrigues, Fernanda Musa, Isabelle Laure Ray-Coquard, Kathleen N. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerOncologyCancerInternal medicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA5506 Background: The FIRST/ENGOT-OV44 trial evaluated adding dost, a programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor, to 1L platinum-based chemotherapy (PBCT) and nira maintenance (MT) ± bevacizumab (bev) in patients (pts) with aOC. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, pts with newly diagnosed stage III–IV, high-grade nonmucinous epithelial OC received 1-cycle run-in of PBCT ± bev and were randomized (1:1:2) to arm 1 (PBCT+placebo [PBO] with PBO MT), arm 2 (PBCT+PBO with nira+PBO MT), or arm 3 (PBCT+dost with dost+nira MT). Stratification factors included intended bev use (yes/no), homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutation status ( BRCA -mutated; BRCA wild-type HRR-positive; BRCA wild-type HRR-negative/not determined), and stage III disease with postoperative residual disease <1 cm (yes/no). After approvals for 1L MT poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, arm 1 enrollment closed, and pts were randomized (1:2) to arms 2 or 3. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1, assessed in arms 2 and 3, and analyzed per randomized treatment. Safety was assessed among pts who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and analyzed per treatment received. The data cutoff was October 31, 2024. Results: Randomization was from 14Nov2018 to 05Jan2021. Efficacy analyses included 1138 randomized pts (arm 2, n=385; arm 3, n=753; stage IV disease at diagnosis, 37.3%; planned interval surgery, 54.6%; inoperable, 9.8%; homologous recombination-deficient [HRd] disease, 39.0%; programmed cell death ligand 1 [PD-L1]–positive tumors, 33.4% [of n=951 with nonmissing PD-L1 status]; median follow-up, 45.9 mo [IQR, 24.2–54.1]). Patient characteristics were balanced between arms. PFS was statistically significantly longer in arm 3 vs arm 2 (median PFS, 20.63 vs 19.19 mo, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73–0.99; P =0.0351). PFS was reported in subgroups with PD-L1–positive tumors (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61–1.17), HRd tumors (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72–1.24), and concurrent bev use (yes: HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68–1.03; no: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69–1.08).There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS), a key secondary endpoint, between arms 3 and 2 (median OS, 44.39 vs 45.37 mo, respectively; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.86–1.19; P =0.9060). The safety population (N=1321; arms 1–3) included 34 pts randomized to arm 1 who, upon unblinding, received arm 2 treatment; 10 randomized pts did not receive study treatment and were excluded from safety analyses. Median duration of exposure was 11.3, 15.2, and 15.2 mo in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Safety results were generally consistent with the known profiles of each agent of the study. Conclusion: Adding dost to 1L PBCT and nira MT ± bev improved PFS in pts with aOC. No OS difference was observed. Clinical trial information: NCT03602859 .

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 score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.392 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→