MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3013777135 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-pd5-03

Abstract PD5-03: Relationship between tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and outcomes in the KEYNOTE-119 study of pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC)

2020· article· en· W3013777135 sur OpenAlexaff
Sherene Loi, Eric P. Winer, Oleg Lipatov, Seock‐Ah Im, Anthony Gonçalvès, Javier Cortés, Keun S Lee, Peter Schmid, Laura Testa, Isabell Witzel, Shoichiro Ohtani, Nicholas C. Turner, Stefania Zambelli, Nadia Harbeck, Fabrice André, Rebecca Dent, Lingkang Huang, Jaime Mejia, Vassiliki Karantza, Roberto Salgado

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePembrolizumabInternal medicineTaxaneOncologyGemcitabineVinorelbineTumor-infiltrating lymphocytesCapecitabineBreast cancerTriple-negative breast cancerAnthracyclineChemotherapyEribulinMetastatic breast cancerCancerImmunotherapyColorectal cancerCisplatin

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Several studies show that the presence of TILs has prognostic significance in TNBC, with greater lymphocytic infiltration associated with clinical outcomes. In the phase 2 KEYNOTE-086 study, TIL levels were a surrogate marker of preexisting antitumor immunity and were independent predictors of response to pembrolizumab (pembro) monotherapy. Here, we analyzed the relationship between the presence of TILs and outcomes in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-119 (NCT02555657) study of pembro monotherapy vs single-agent chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with previously treated mTNBC. Methods: From October 2015 to April 2017, 622 pts from 31 countries were enrolled. Key eligibility criteria included centrally confirmed TNBC, 1 or 2 prior systemic treatments for metastatic disease, documented progression on most recent therapy, prior treatment with an anthracycline and/or a taxane, and provision of a tumor sample for central determination of triple-negative status and PD-L1 expression. Pts with active brain metastases were excluded. Pts were stratified by PD-L1 status (positive vs negative; PD-L1 positivity was defined as a CPS ≥1) and history of prior neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment vs de novo metastatic disease at initial diagnosis. Pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W or single-agent chemo per investigator’s choice of capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine, with a maximum enrollment cap of 60% for each, administered per local product label, until progression, intolerable toxicity, or investigator/patient decision. Response was assessed every 9 wk for 1 y and every 12 wk thereafter. Primary end points were OS in the PD-L1 CPS ≥10, CPS ≥1, and total populations. Secondary end points were PFS, ORR, duration of response, and DCR in the PD-L1 CPS ≥10, CPS ≥1, and total populations, and safety. The presence of TILs in archival tumor samples was assessed by light microscopy of hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections using a predefined method. The relationship between TILs and OS and PFS was analyzed using Cox regression; the relationship between TILs and ORR was analyzed using logistic regression. The interaction between treatment and TILs was assessed. Results: The study was negative for the primary end point. TILs were evaluable in 536/622 (86.2%) treated pts (273 [pembro]; 263 [chemo]). The median TILs distribution was 5% (IQR, 14%). TIL levels were significantly higher in responders vs nonresponders in the pembro arm, but not the chemo arm. TIL levels as a continuous variable were significantly (P< 0.05) associated with all clinical outcomes tested in the pembro but not the chemo arm (Table). For pts with TILs <5%, assessment of OS yielded a HR of 1.50 (95% CI, 1.14-1.97); for pts with TILs ≥5%, the HR was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.59-0.96). Median OS and 18-month OS rate (pembro vs chemo) for pts with TILs <5% was 5.9 vs 8.8 mo and 15% vs 27%, respectively; for pts with TILs ≥5%, this was 12.5 vs 11.3 mo and 35% vs 27%. The correlation between TILs vs CPS was moderate at 0.45; multivariate modeling of TILs and CPS showed independent predictive value. Conclusions: High TILs were significantly associated with better clinical outcomes with pembro but not chemo. Efficacy estimates at the prespecified median TIL cut point (≥5%) suggest that a subset of later-line advanced pts with TNBC can derive prolonged survival benefit from pembro over chemo. Association of TILs With Clinical OutcomesTreatment ArmContinuousBORDCRPFSOSVariableORRP*DCRP*Event RateP*Event RateP*Pembro (n=273),TILs25 (9.2)0.000732 (11.7)0.0058241 (88.3)0.0002239 (87.5)0.0001n (%)Chemo (n=263),TILs29 (11.0)0.180950 (19.0)0.3026191 (72.6)0.234236 (89.7)0.3321n (%)*P values are 1-sided for pembro and 2-sided for chemo.The stratification variable, prior (neo)adjuvant therapy vs de novo metastatic disease at initial diagnosis, was used as a covariate in the model.TILs was square root transformed.BOR, best overall response; chemo, chemotherapy; DCR, disease control rate; OS, overall survival; pembro, pembrolizumab; PFS, progression-free survival; TILs, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Citation Format: Sherene Loi, Eric Winer, Oleg Lipatov, Seock-Ah Im, Anthony Goncalves, Javier Cortes, Keun S Lee, Peter Schmid, Laura Testa, Isabell Witzel, Shoichiro Ohtani, Nicholas Turner, Stefania Zambelli, Nadia Harbeck, Fabrice Andre, Rebecca Dent, LingKang Huang, Jaime Mejia, Vassiliki Karantza, Roberto Salgado. Relationship between tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and outcomes in the KEYNOTE-119 study of pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD5-03.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,013

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,146
Tête enseignante GPT0,432
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations66
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer ResearchMême sujetCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersTravaux en français237 207