Abstract CT022: CheckMate 848: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors of high tumor mutational burden
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract High tumor mutational burden assessed in tissue biopsies (tTMB-H) or blood (bTMB-H) is associated with clinical efficacy in patients treated with immunotherapies. CheckMate 848 (NCT03668119) is a prospective phase 2 study of nivolumab (NIVO) with or without ipilimumab (IPI) in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors that are tTMB-H or bTMB-H (≥ 10 mutations/megabase) who were immunotherapy-naive and refractory to standard local therapies. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in patients with tTMB-H or bTMB-H, assessed by FoundationOne® CDx-based and Clinical Trial Assays (Foundation Medicine), respectively. The study was not powered to compare NIVO + IPI vs NIVO. We present the interim and final analyses for the tTMB-H and bTMB-H cohorts, respectively (≥ 12 months follow-up, database lock June 2021). Of 1954 screened patients, 212 were randomized 2:1 to NIVO 240 mg Q2W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W or NIVO 480 mg Q4W for ≤ 24 months, and 201 (135 tTMB-H; 147 bTMB-H) were refractory to standard therapies. Of > 40 tumor types, colorectal (10.8%), small-cell lung (7.5%), breast (7.1%), and uterine (7.1%) were the most common. ORR and survival outcomes with NIVO + IPI were improved in patients with tTMB-H. The responses were independent of bTMB-H status in the tTMB-H cohort but improved with tTMB-H status in the bTMB-H cohort (Table). The safety profile of NIVO + IPI was manageable, and clinical outcomes with NIVO were comparable with previous studies. The impact of TMB cutoff, PD-L1 expression, and microsatellite instability were explored. In conclusion, NIVO + IPI demonstrated clinical efficacy with a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors that are tTMB-H or bTMB-H and refractory to standard therapies, with increased efficacy observed in patients with tTMB-H. NIVO + IPI tTMB-H cohort bTMB-H cohorta Patients, n (%)b,c 68 (32.1) 80 (37.7) Number of prior treatments, median (range) 2 (0–7) 2 (1–9) ORR, n (%)c, 95% CI 24 (35.3), 24.1–47.8 18 (22.5), 13.9–33.2 ORR in patients with bTMB-H by tTMBc: < 10 mut/Mb (n = 31), n (%), 95% CI NA 3 (9.7), 2.0–25.8 ≥ 10 mut/Mb (n = 39), n (%), 95% CI NA 13 (33.3), 19.1–50.2 ≥ 10 to < 16 mut/Mb (n = 18), n (%), 95% CI NA 3 (16.7), 3.6–41.4 ≥ 16 mut/Mb (n = 21), n (%), 95% CI NA 10 (47.6), 25.7–70.2 ORR in patients with tTMB-H by bTMBc: < 10 mut/Mb (n = 20), n (%), 95% CI 7 (35.0), 15.4–59.2 NA ≥ 10 mut/Mb (n = 43), n (%), 95% CI 16 (37.2), 23.0–53.3 NA ≥ 10 to < 16 mut/Mb (n = 12), n (%), 95% CI 3 (25.0), 5.5–57.2 NA ≥ 16 mut/Mb (n = 31), n (%), 95% CI 13 (41.9), 24.5–60.9 NA Percentage of responders (≥ 9 months) (95% CI) 91 (68–98) 88 (61–97) Median PFS, months (95% CI)c 4.1 (2.8–11.3) 2.8 (2.3–3.0) Median OS, months (95% CI)c 14.5 (7.7–NE) 8.5 (5.8–10.5) aThe bTMB cohort was randomized prior to December 20, 2019. bOut of 212 randomized patients; data presented in this table are from patients who were refractory to standard therapies. cMinimum follow-up 12 months. bTMB, blood tumor mutational burden; NA, not applicable; NE, not evaluable; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; tTMB, tissue tumor mutational burden. Citation Format: Michael Schenker, Mauricio Burotto, Martin Richardet, Tudor Ciuleanu, Anthony Goncalves, Neeltje Steeghs, Patrick Schöffski, Paolo A. Ascierto, Michele Maio, Iwona Lugowska, Lorena Lupinacci, Alexandra Leary, Jean-Pierre Delord, Julieta Grasselli, David S. Tan, Jennifer E. Friedmann, Jacqueline Vuky, Marina Tschaika, Ruta Slepetis, Georgia D. Kollia, Misena Pacius, Ning Huang, Parul Doshi, Jonathan Baden, Massimo Di Nicola. CheckMate 848: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors of high tumor mutational burden [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT022.
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) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,002 |
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 ».