Abstract CT001: Pembrolizumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma: Efficacy and safety results from the EORTC 1325-MG/Keynote 054 double-blinded phase III trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab are approved by FDA as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. We conducted the phase 3 double-blind EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial to evaluate pembrolizumab vs placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. Methods: Eligible patients included those ≥18 years of age with complete resection of cutaneous melanoma metastatic to lymph node(s), classified as stage IIIA (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm), IIIB or IIIC (excluding those with in-transit metastasis). A total of 1019 patients were randomized (stratification by stage and region) to pembrolizumab at a flat dose of 200 mg (N=514) or placebo (N=505) every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses (~1 year) or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. In the absence of brain metastases, patients with recurrence were eligible for cross-over or re-challenge (those who received pembrolizumab and recurred more than 6 months after completing 1 year of therapy). The 2 co-primary endpoints were recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the intention-to-treat overall population and in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors. A total of 409 RFS events were needed to provide 92% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence or death of 0.70 (1-sided alpha=1.4%). The interim analysis was performed at 1-sided alpha=0.8% (O'Brien-Fleming alpha error spending function) in the overall patient population, and at 2.5% in the PD-L1 positive population. Results: Overall, 15%/46.5%/37.5% of patients had stage IIIA/IIIB/IIIC. At 1.25 yr median follow-up, pembrolizumab (135 events) compared with placebo (216 events) significantly prolonged RFS in the overall population (12-month RFS rate: 75.4% vs 61.0%; HR 0.57, 98.4% CI 0.43-0.74; P<0.0001). Same was true in those with a PD-L1-positive tumor (N=852; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.69; P<0.0001) or a PD-L1-negative tumor (N=116; HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.47 (0.26, 0.85); P=0.01). RFS was consistently prolonged across subgroups. Drug-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported in 14.7% (N=75) in the pembrolizumab group and 3.4% (N=17) in the placebo group. There was only one pembrolizumab-related death due to myositis. The highest incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), mostly grade 1 to 2, observed in the pembrolizumab vs placebo group were endocrine disorders (23.4% versus 5.0%) [hypothyroidism (14.3% vs 2.8%), hyperthyroidism (10.4% vs 1.2%), thyroiditis (3.1%) vs 0.2%)]. The incidence of grade 3-4 irAEs was 7.1% vs 0.6%: colitis (2.0% vs 0.2%), pneumonitis (0.8% vs 0%), hepatitis (1.4% vs 0.2%), all others had incidences < 1%. Conclusions: As adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk stage III melanoma pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year, resulted in significantly prolonged RFS with a favorable benefit-risk profile. Citation Format: Alexander M. Eggermont, Christian U. Blank, Mario Mandala, Georgina V. Long, Victoria Atkinson, Stéphane Dalle, Andrew Haydon, Mikhail Lichinitser, Adnan Khattak, Matteo S. Carlino, Shahneen Sandhu, James Larkin, Susana Puig, Paolo A. Ascierto, Piotr Rutkowski, Dirk Schadendorf, Rutger Koornstra, Leonel Hernandez-Aya, Michele Maio, Alfonsus J. van den Eertwegh, Jean-Jacques Grob, Ralf Gutzmer, Rahima Jamal, Veronica Rivas, Nageatte Ibrahim, Sandrine Marreaud, Sven Janssen, Alexander van Akkooi, Stefan Suciu, Caroline Robert. Pembrolizumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma: Efficacy and safety results from the EORTC 1325-MG/Keynote 054 double-blinded phase III trial [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 CT001.
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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 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 ».