KEYNOTE-022 Part 3: Phase II randomized study of 1L dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) plus pembrolizumab (Pembro) or placebo (PBO) for BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Pembro + D + T had promising antitumor activity and acceptable tolerability in phase 1 of KEYNOTE-022 (NCT02130466). Methods: In the double-blind phase 2 part of KEYNOTE-022, pts with treatment (tx)-naive BRAFV600E/K-mutant stage III/IV melanoma were randomly assigned (stratified by ECOG PS [0/1)]; LDH level [>1.1 vs ≤ 1.1× ULN]) to pembro 2 mg/kg Q3W + D 150 mg BID + T 2 mg QD or PBO + D + T. Strata with ECOG PS 1 and either LDH level were combined due to small numbers. Primary end point was PFS. Significance requirements to reject null hypothesis at 1-sided 0.025 type I error: ∼74 PFS events for 80% power; observed HR ≤ 0.62. Additional end points included ORR, DOR, TTR, and OS. Data cutoff: Feb 15, 2018. Results: Of 60 pts in each arm, most baseline characteristics were balanced (stage IV disease, 98% in pembro + D + T vs 95% in PBO + D + T; ECOG PS 0, 80% both; LDH >1.1× ULN, 45% vs 43%). Median follow-up for both arms was 9.6 mo (range 2.7-23.4). 67% vs 70% received ≥12 mo tx. Median PFS was 16.0 mo (95% CI 8.6-21.5) with pembro + D + T vs 10.3 mo (95% CI 7.0-15.6) with PBO + D + T; HR, 0.66; P = 0.04287; 12-mo PFS rates were 59% vs 45%. ORR was 63% vs 72%; CR rates were 18% vs 13%. Median TTR was 2.8 mo in each arm; median DOR was 18.7 mo (range 1.9+ to 22.1) vs 12.5 (2.1-19.5+). More patients (60%) on pembro + D + T had responses lasting ≥18 mo vs PBO + D + T (28%). OS rates at 12 mo were 80% vs 73%. Any grade (G) treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 95% vs 93% and G3-5 TRAEs occurred in 58% vs 27% of pts. G3-5 TRAEs occurring in ≥ 5% of pts were pyrexia (10% vs 3%), increased ALT (7% vs 5%), increased AST (8% vs 5%), increased GGT (7% vs 5%), rash (5% vs 2%), and neutropenia (2% vs 5%). 40% vs 20% of pts discontinued any of the 3 study tx due to TRAEs, and 1 pt died due to a TRAE (pneumonitis) in the pembro + D + T arm. Immune-mediated AEs occurred in 43% vs 13% of pts, most commonly pneumonitis (15% vs 2%), hypothyroidism (8% vs 2%), skin disorders (7% vs 2%), hyperthyroidism (5% vs 0%), and uveitis (5% vs 3%); most resolved with tx discontinuation/modification. Conclusions: Pembro + D + T vs PBO + D + T demonstrated numerically longer PFS and DOR and a higher rate of G3-5 TRAEs in pts with tx-naive BRAFV600E/K-mutant advanced melanoma. Clinical trial identification: NCT02130466. Editorial acknowledgement: Medical writing and/or editorial assistance was provided by Doyel Mitra, PhD, of the ApotheCom pembrolizumab team (Yardley, PA, USA). This assistance was funded by Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Legal entity responsible for the study: Merck & Co., Inc. Funding: Merck & Co., Inc. Disclosure: P.A. Ascierto: Advisory board member: BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Array, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, Genmab, Newlink Genetics, Medimmune, Syndax, AstraZeneca; Research funding: BMS, Roche-Genentech, Array. P.F. Ferrucci: Advisory board member: BMS, Novartis, MSD; Research funding: BMS, MSD; Honoraria, travel expenses, accommodations: BMS, Novartis, MSD, Roche. R. Stephens: Honoraria, travel expenses: MSD NZ. M. Del Vecchio: Consultant, advisor, research funds: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp and Dohme. V. Atkinson: Advisory board member: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre; Speakers’ bureau: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche; Honoraria: BMS, MSD, Novartis; Travel expenses: BMS, MSD. H. Schmidt: Advisory board member: BMS, MSD, Incyte, Roche; Speakers’ bureau: BMS, Novartis; Research funding: MSD; BMS. J. Schachter: Honoraria, consultant/advisory, travel, accomodations, expenses: BMS, MSD. P. Queirolo: Advisory board member, speakers' bureau, honoraria, travel expenses, accommodations: BMS, Roche, Novartis, MSD. G.V. Long, A.M. Di Giacomo: Advisory board member: Incyte, GSK, Pierre Fabre; Honoraria: BMS, Roche, MSD; Travel expenses, including accommodations: BMS, Roche. I. Svane: Honoraria/Consulting fees: Roche, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Celgene, Incyte, Pfizer, BMS, AstraZeneca, TILT Bio, IO Biotech; Stock (co-founder): IO Biotech. M. Lotem: Advisory board member: Merck; Honoraria: Merck, BMS; Travel expenses, accommodations: Merck, BMS, Novartis. G. Bar-Sela: Research funding: Merck. B.P. Mookerjee: Employee: Novartis; Stock: Novartis, GSK, AstraZeneca. R. Ghori, N. Ibrahim, B. Homet Moreno: Employee: Merck & Co., Inc. A. Ribas: Stock ownership: Lutris, PACT, Tango; Advisory board member: Advaxis, Arcus, BioncoTech, Compugen, CytomX, Five Prime, FLX-Bio, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Kite-Gilead, Rgenix; Honoraria: Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Genentech, Merck, Novartis, Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,004 |
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 ».