Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab for Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IMPORTANCE: New therapeutic options for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) are needed. This study evaluated dual checkpoint combination therapy in patients with mPDAC. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the anti-PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) antibody using either durvalumab monotherapy or in combination with the anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 antibody using durvalumab plus tremelimumab therapy in patients with mPDAC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Part A of this multicenter, 2-part, phase 2 randomized clinical trial was a lead-in safety, open-label study with planned expansion to part B pending an efficacy signal from part A. Between November 26, 2015, and March 23, 2017, 65 patients with mPDAC who had previously received only 1 first-line fluorouracil-based or gemcitabine-based treatment were enrolled at 21 sites in 6 countries. Efficacy analysis included the intent-to-treat population; safety analysis included patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment and for whom any postdose data were available. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (75 mg every 4 weeks) combination therapy for 4 cycles followed by durvalumab therapy (1500 mg every 4 weeks) or durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg every 4 weeks) for up to 12 months or until the onset of progressive disease or unacceptable toxic effects. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Safety and efficacy were measured by objective response rate, which was used to determine study expansion to part B. The threshold for expansion was an objective response rate of 10% for either treatment arm. RESULTS: Among 65 randomized patients, 34 (52%) were men and median age was 61 (95% CI, 37-81) years. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 7 of 32 patients (22%) receiving combination therapy and in 2 of 32 patients (6%) receiving monotherapy; 1 patient randomized to the monotherapy arm did not receive treatment owing to worsened disease. Fatigue, diarrhea, and pruritus were the most common adverse events in both arms. Overall, 4 of 64 patients (6%) discontinued treatment owing to treatment-related adverse events. Objective response rate was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.08-16.22) for patients receiving combination therapy and 0% (95% CI, 0.00-10.58) for patients receiving monotherapy. Low patient numbers limited observation of the associations between treatment response and PD-L1 expression or microsatellite instability status. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Treatment was well tolerated, and the efficacy of durvalumab plus tremelimumab therapy and durvalumab monotherapy reflected a population of patients with mPDAC who had poor prognoses and rapidly progressing disease. Patients were not enrolled in part B because the threshold for efficacy was not met in part A. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02558894.
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.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 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) | 0,001 | 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 découle