Abstract GS3-01: Additional efficacy endpoints from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Pembrolizumab (pembro) monotherapy showed durable antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients (pts) with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in the KEYNOTE-012, -086, and -119 studies. In a prespecified interim analysis of KEYNOTE-355 (NCT02819518), pembro combined with chemotherapy (chemo) showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus chemo alone in pts with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1 CPS ≥10 (HR for progression or death, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.49-0.86; one-sided P=0.0012 [prespecified statistical criterion was alpha=0.00411 at this interim analysis]). Additionally, pembro + chemo was generally well tolerated, with no new safety signals. Here, we examine PFS outcomes for each chemo partner and present key secondary endpoints from KEYNOTE-355. Methods: 847 pts with measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS 0-1, and ≥6 mo DFI were randomized 2:1 to pembro + chemo (nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days; paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days; or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or pbo + chemo for up to 35 administrations of pembro/pbo or until progression/intolerable toxicity. Steroid premedication for paclitaxel was given according to local guidelines and practices, and was not restricted by the protocol. Crossover between arms was not allowed. Pts were stratified by chemo type (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs <1), and prior (neo)adjuvant treatment with same-class chemo (yes vs no). Dual primary endpoints are PFS (RECIST v1.1, blinded independent central review) and OS in pts with PD-L1 positive tumors (CPS ≥10 and ≥1) and in all pts. Secondary endpoints include ORR, DCR (CR + PR + SD ≥24 weeks), and DOR. The PFS treatment effect was assessed in subgroups descriptively using HRs and 95% CIs; although subgroup analysis by on-study chemo were pre-specified, the trial was not powered to compare efficacy among treatment groups by different chemo regimens. Results: As of Dec 11 2019, median follow-up was 25.9 mo for pembro + chemo (n=566) and 26.3 mo for pbo + chemo (n=281). The HR for PFS favored pembro regardless of choice of chemo or CPS population (Table). Results for the key secondary endpoints of ORR, DCR, and DOR favored pembro + chemo, with the treatment effect increasing as CPS increased (Table). Conclusion: In subgroup analysis, PFS with pembro + chemo compared to pbo + chemo in pts with metastatic TNBC was improved regardless of chemo partner. A trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment with pembro + chemo was observed for ORR, DCR and DOR endpoints. These data further support the potential of pembro + chemo as a first-line treatment option for metastatic TNBC. CPS ≥ 10CPS ≥ 1All ptsPembro + ChemoPbo + ChemoPembro + ChemoPbo + ChemoPembro + Chemo|Pbo + ChemoN = 220N = 103N = 425N = 211N = 566N = 281PFS, mo median (95% CI)9.7 (7.6 - 11.3)5.6 (5.3 - 7.5)7.6 (6.6 - 8.0)5.6 (5.4 - 7.4)7.5 (6.3 - 7.7)5.6 (5.4 - 7.3)HR (95% CI)0.65 (0.49 - 0.86)0.74 (0.61 - 0.90)0.82 (0.69 - 0.97)PFS by on-study chemo, (n [%)) mo median(95% CI)Nab-Paclitaxel(63 [28.6%]) 9.9(36 [35.0%]) 5.5(130 [30.6%]) 6.3(74 [35.1%)) 5.3(173 [30.6%]) 7.5(95 [33.8%]) 5.4HR (95% CI)0.57 (0.34 - 0.95)0.66 (0.26 - 0.82)0.69 (0.51 - 0.93)Paclitaxel(33 [15.0%]) 9.6(11 [10.7%]) 3.6(62 [14.6%]) 9.4(22 [10.4%]) 3.8(82 [14.5%]) 8.0(32 [11.4%]) 3.8HR (95% CI)0.33 (0.14 - 0.76)0.46 (0.26 - 0.82)0.57 (0.35 - 0.93)Gemcitabine-Carboplatin(124 [56.4%]) 8.0(56 [54.4%]) 7.2(233 [54.8%]) 7.5(115 [54.5%]) 7.5(311 [54.9%]) 7.4(154 [54.8%]) 7.4HR (95% CI)0.77 (0.53 - 1.11)0.86 (0.66 - 1.11)0.93 (0.74 - 1.16)ORR, % (95% CI)53.2 (46.4 - 59.9)39.8 (30.3 - 49.9)45.2 (40.4 - 50.0)37.9 (31.3 - 44.8)41.0 (36.9 - 45.2)35.9 (30.3 - 41.9)DCR, % (95% CI)65.0 (58.3 - 71.3)54.4 (44.3 - 64.2)58.6 (53.7 - 63.3)53.6 (46.6 - 60.4)56.0 (51.8 - 60.1)51.6 (45.6 - 57.6)DOR, mo, median (range)19.3 (1.6+ - 29.8)7.3 (1.5 - 32.5+)10.1 (1.0+ - 29.8)6.5 (1.5 - 32.5+)10.1 (1.0+ - 29.8)6.4 ( 1.5 - 32.5+)"+" indicates there is no progressive disease by the time of last disease assessment. Citation Format: Hope S. Rugo, Peter Schmid, David W. Cescon, Zbigniew Nowecki, Seock-Ah Im, Mastura Md Yusof, Carlos Gallardo, Oleg Lipatov, Carlos Henrique Barrios, Jose Perez-Garcia, Hiroji Iwata, Norikazu Masuda, Marco Torregroza Otero, Erhan Gokmen, Sherene Loi, Zifang Guo, Jing Zhao, Vassiliki Karantza, Gursel Aktan, Javier Cortes. Additional efficacy endpoints from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-01.
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 | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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 ».