Abstract CT075: KEYNOTE-189: Randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of pembrolizumab (pembro) or placebo plus pemetrexed (pem) and platinum as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The premise that chemotherapy and immunotherapy may provide greater benefit than pembro or chemotherapy alone was supported by KEYNOTE-021 cohort G, in which pembro + pem + carboplatin significantly improved ORR and PFS over pem + carboplatin in patients (pts) with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. We present results of the KEYNOTE-189 study of pembro + pem-platinum vs placebo + pem-platinum as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Methods: Pts with previously untreated stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC, no EGFR or ALK alteration, and ECOG PS 0-1 were randomized 2:1 to 4 Q3W cycles of pembro 200 mg or placebo + pem 500 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 5 or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 followed by maintenance pembro or placebo + pem. Randomization was stratified by PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS; <1% vs ≥1%), platinum agent, and smoking status. Response was assessed by RECIST v1.1 per blinded, independent central review. Pts in the placebo arm with verified PD could crossover to pembro monotherapy if eligible. Primary end points were OS and PFS in the ITT population. Prespecified superiority boundaries at the first interim analysis were one-sided P = .00128 for OS and .00559 for PFS. Results: 616 pts were randomized: 410 to pembro + pem + platinum (“pembro arm”), 206 to placebo + pem + platinum (“placebo arm”). 76.5% of treated pts in the pembro arm and 66.8% in the placebo arm received ≥5 cycles of pem. 88.1% of enrolled pts were current/former smokers, carboplatin was chosen for 72.2%, and 63.0% had TPS ≥1%. As of Nov 8, 2017, median follow-up was 10.5 mo (range 0.2-20.4), and 33.8% in the pembro arm vs 17.8% in the placebo arm remained on treatment. In the placebo arm, 67 pts crossed over in-study to pembro and 18 received anti-PD-(L)1 therapy outside the study (effective crossover rate: 41.3% in the ITT population, 50.0% when pts still on treatment excluded). Pembro + pem + platinum, improved OS (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.38-0.64; P < .00001) and PFS (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.43-0.64; P < .00001) over placebo + pem + platinum. Median OS was not reached with pembro and was 11.3 mo with placebo. Median PFS was 8.8 mo vs 4.9 mo. OS benefit in the pembro arm was observed across subgroups, including all PD-L1 TPS categories (HR [95% CI] 0.59 [0.38-0.92] for <1%, 0.55 [0.34-0.90] for 1-49%, and 0.42 [0.26-0.68] for ≥50%). ORR was higher with pembro (47.6% vs 18.9%; P < .00001). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 67.2% of pts in the pembro arm vs 65.8% in the placebo arm; AEs led to discontinuation of any treatment in 27.7% vs 14.9%, all treatment in 13.8% vs 7.9%, and death in 6.7% vs 5.9%. Conclusions: Pembro + pem + platinum provided superior OS, PFS, and ORR compared with placebo + pem + platinum and had a manageable safety profile in pts with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alterations. These data suggest first-line pembro + pem and platinum may be a new standard of care for this population. Citation Format: Leena Gandhi, Delvys Rodgríguez-Abreu, Shirish Gadgeel, Emilio Esteban, Enriqueta Felip, Flávia De Angelis, Manuel Domine, Philip Clingan, Maximilian J Hochmair, Steven Powell, Susanna Yee-Shan Cheng, Helge G Bischoff, Nir Peled, Francesco Grossi, Ross R Jennens, Martin Reck, Rina Hui, Edward B Garon, Michael Boyer, Belén Rubio-Viqueira, Silvia Novello, Takayasu Kurata, Jhanelle E Gray, John J Vida, Ziwen Wei, Jing Yang, Harry Raftopoulos, M. Catherine Pietanza, Marina C Garassino. KEYNOTE-189: Randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of pembrolizumab (pembro) or placebo plus pemetrexed (pem) and platinum as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT075.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».