A randomized phase II study of cabozantinib and nivolumab versus nivolumab in recurrent endometrial cancer.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
6010 Background: The efficacy of treatment for recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) remains limited. Vascular endothelial growth factor and inflammatory chemokines are proangiogenic factors and immune modulators involved in immune suppression. Reprogramming the tumor microenvironment by combining antiangiogenic and immunotherapy (IO) could enhance antitumor responses. Methods: A 2:1 randomized phase 2 trial compared the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab (Arm A) versus nivolumab (Arm B) in recurrent EC. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) assessed by RECIST 1.1 (NCT03367741). Women with recurrent measurable EC were eligible. There were no limits on prior therapy, but at least one prior platinum-based chemotherapy was required. Patients (pts) were stratified according to MSI status and assessed by CT every 8 weeks. Cabozantinib was given at 40 mg daily (Arm A) and nivolumab at 240 mg, on D1 and D15 of a 28-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks (Arms A & B). Pts with carcinosarcoma or prior IO were enrolled in an exploratory cohort and received combination treatment (Arm C). A baseline biopsy was required for all pts. CyTOF analysis was performed on fresh biopsies. Results: 76 evaluable pts were enrolled (Arm A: 36, Arm B: 18, Arm C: 9 carcinosarcoma, and 20 post IO including 7 pts crossed over from Arm B). 55% of pts had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy. Two pts were MSI high in Arm A and none in Arm B. The Kaplan-Meier estimated median PFS was 5.3 (95% CI: 3.5-9.5) months in Arm A and 1.9 (95% CI: 1.6-3.8) months in Arm B, with a log-rank p = 0.07, which met the significance level of 0.1 used for sample size calculation. Objective response rate (ORR) was 25% for Arm A and 16.7% for Arm B; stable disease (SD) was seen in 44.4% vs 11.1%, respectively. Clinical benefit (ORR+SD) was significantly higher in arm A vs B (p < 0.001). In Arm C-carcinosarcoma, one patient had a partial response (11.9 months duration) and four SD. In Arm C-prior IO, six pts responded and eight had SD. The most common related AEs in Arm A were diarrhea (47.2%), elevated liver enzymes (44.4%), fatigue (38.9%), anorexia, hypertension, and nausea (30.6%), mainly grade 1/2. Preliminary CyTOF analysis across treatment arms identified multiple immune subsets for further interrogation including activated CD8+ and CD4+ T cells. Conclusions: Cabozantinib plus nivolumab demonstrates improved PFS compared to nivolumab in heavily pre-treated women with recurrent EC. In-depth CyTOF analysis of the tumor microenvironment to identify predictive immune biomarkers of response is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03367741.
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 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 | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».