Clinical factors influencing retreatment with anti-PD-(L)1 therapies after treatment in early-stage cancers: a modified Delphi consensus study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Anti-programmed death (ligand) 1 (anti-PD-(L)1) therapies were first introduced in the metastatic setting and have since been approved and reimbursed for treating early-stage cancers in the adjuvant, perioperative, and neoadjuvant settings in many cancer types. Current evidence supporting anti-PD(L)-1 retreatment after relapse with prior neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant anti-PD(L)1 therapy is limited and inconclusive. There is no guidance for clinicians on how and when to retreat with anti-PD-(L)1 therapies when anti-PD-(L)1 therapy was administered in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting. This study aimed to reach consensus on factors to guide decision-making regarding retreatment with anti-PD-(L)1 therapies after prior therapy with an anti-PD-(L)1 agent. This modified Delphi study consisted of a clinician survey across 10 countries followed by three real-time virtual Delphi panels involving clinical experts who had completed the survey. Clinical experts were experienced in using anti-PD-(L)1 treatments in early-stage cancers and/or as retreatment of patients with recurrences following early-stage treatment with anti-PD-(L)1 therapies. Of 28 clinicians providing survey responses, 20 participated in one of three Delphi panels. There was consensus that retreatment can be defined as 'repeated treatment with the same therapeutic class following relapse after or during neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant treatment.' All three panels agreed that decisions around retreatment should consider 'prior immune-related adverse events/toxicity,' 'time-related factors' (eg, time since completion of full treatment course and since discontinuation) and 'previous patient response' (often referred to by clinicians as tumor response, which may have reflected their experience with metastatic disease). Other factors identified as important included country-specific practices, treatment availability, and reimbursement. Generally, the clinical experts considered that retreatment could be considered from ≥3 to 6 months after stopping initial anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, or from ≥6 months after relapse/recurrence. In conclusion, clinicians across different regions recognized a role for retreating patients with anti-PD-(L)1 therapies after initial anti-PD-(L)1 treatment for early-stage cancers. Consensus was reached on some factors to consider regarding whether and when to retreat, although differences in clinical practice between countries/geographical regions made it difficult to achieve consensus for some more nuanced elements of retreatment. Further evidence could help better inform retreatment decisions.
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 | 0,120 | 0,158 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».