Olaparib, durvalumab, and cyclophosphamide, and a prognostic blood signature in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: the randomized phase 2 SOLACE2 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SOLACE2 (ACTRN12618000686202) investigates whether 12-weeks of olaparib, or cyclophosphamide-olaparib priming, improves subsequent durvalumab-olaparib progression-free survival (PFS), and is superior to olaparib monotherapy without any priming, in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (n = 114). We also evaluate the utility of CUP-CC assay, an immune signature of C-C chemokine receptor type 4 up-regulation, chemokines, and cytokines. Priming with olaparib, or cyclophosphamide-olaparib, followed by durvalumab-olaparib, are both associated with longer PFS compared to olaparib monotherapy, but do not reach the pre-specified primary endpoint of 36-week trial threshold (PFS36). PFS36 rates are 47.4% (95% CI, 31.0-62.1; olaparib priming then olaparib-durvalumab), 48.7% (32.5-63.2; olaparib-cyclophosphamide then olaparib-durvalumab) and 35.1% (20.4-50.3; olaparib monotherapy). PFS is significantly longer for the homologous recombination deficient (N = 71) as compared to the proficient (HRP) (N = 29) subgroups (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.55, 0.35-0.87). CUP-CC+ subgroup (N = 58) has a significantly longer PFS (HR 0.31, 0.19-0.49) than CUP-CC- (N = 46). Future studies should investigate whether CUP-CC has the potential to personalize poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapies for patients who are BRCA wild-type, including HRP patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".