Immunotherapy Bridge 2016 and Melanoma Bridge 2016: meeting abstracts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: NSCLC remains a challenging disease to treat, especially because the majority of patients present with advanced disease [1]. For many of these patients the standard first-line therapy is platinumbased chemotherapy, which can prolong survival by 8-12 months in some patients and also improve disease-related symptoms [2]. The chemotherapy treatments are frequently poorly tolerated. Treatment choices following chemotherapy are limited, approved options include docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib. Recent developments with immunotherapies and approval of agents such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab [3, 4] are exciting. Other immunotherapy agents such as darvolumab, atezolizumab and avelumab are also investigated and show good results. Materials and methods: Literature was reviewed about checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic NSCLC. Both the efficacy, patient reported outcomes and adverse events will be reported, with emphasis on the results from phase 3 trials. Results: Checkpoint inhibitors in development are ipilimumab and tremelimumab, they block CTLA4. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are blocking binding of PD1 to PDL1 and PDL2. Atezolizumab and durvalumab are blocking binding of PDL1 to PD1 and CD 80. Avelumab is in early stages of research. Nivolumab trials CheckMate 017 [5] and 057 in second-line phase 3 trials and ChecMate 026 in 1st-line monotharapy vs SOC phase 3 trial were reported. In second-line nivolumab showed superiority over docetaxel in progression free survival (PFS) 3.5 vs 2.8 months, HR = 0.62, p-0.004, mOS = 9.2 vs 6 months independent to PDL1 expression in squamous histology. Adverse events were rare and manageable. Combination of nivolumab with chemotherapy and with erlotinib are being investigated. Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed responses which exceeded one year, median PFS = 6.3 months, especially high tumor proportion score (TPS) 50%, representing 23% of the screened NSCLC population. In pembrolizumab vs docetaxel, Keynote 010, median OS with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg and at least 50% PDL1 TPS was 14.9 months vs 8.2 months on docetaxel. Adverse events were less common on pembrolizumab. PDL1 expression 50% correlated with improved RR,PFS and OS regardless of histology. Smoking status was associated with increased RR. Keynote 024 = pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy showed superiority in phase 3, chemonaive patients of pembrolizumab in OS. (=Press release only) Atezolizumab vs docetaxel, phase 2 randomized trial [6] POPLAR showed improvement in OS (HR 0.69 vs 0.73) in ITT population. Duration of response of 18.6 months compared to 7.2 months with docetaxel and well tolerated safety profile.OAK trial = phase 3 is ongoing. Durvalumab with trmelimumab phase 3 trial results are pending. Conclusion: The results of immunotherapy trials are encouraging, both from the point of improved efficacy and their tolerability. Combination treatments with immunotherapy may further improve the efficacy and prolong the lives of the patients with metastatic NSCLC. These combination treatments will replace eventually the platinum doublets in first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC Immunotherapy in oncology: data from clinical trial K2 Immunotherapy in ovarian and endometrial cancer
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».