MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized comparison of two doses of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody MK-3475 for ipilimumab-refractory (IPI-R) and IPI-naive (IPI-N) melanoma (MEL).

2014· article· en· W2409346424 on OpenAlexaff
Omid Hamid, Caroline Robert, Antoni Ribas, Jedd D. Wolchok, F. Stephen Hodi, Richard Kefford, Anthony M. Joshua, Wen‐Jen Hwu, Tara C. Gangadhar, Amita Patnaik, Peter Hersey, Jeffrey S. Weber, Richard W. Joseph, Kevin Gergich, Xiaoyun Li, Patrick Chun, Scot Ebbinghaus, Soonmo Peter Kang, Adil Daud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineIpilimumabRefractory (planetary science)Clinical endpointMallinckrodtClinical trialCancerImmunotherapyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3000 Background: MK-3475 has shown durable antitumor activity in MEL across multiple doses and schedules. We compared the efficacy and safety of 2 MK-3475 doses in MEL patients (pts). Methods: In separate cohorts, IPI-N and IPI-R pts were randomized 1:1 to MK-3475 2 or 10 mg/kg every 3 wk (2 Q3W or 10 Q3W). IPI-N pts received ≤2 prior systemic therapies. IPI-R pts had any number of prior therapies and unequivocal or confirmed PD per immune-related response criteria (irRC) after ≥2 IPI doses; all BRAF-mutant pts were previously treated with BRAF inhibitors. Primary endpoint was ORR assessed by RECIST 1.1 every 12 wk by independent central review. Investigator-assessed response by irRC was also obtained. Results: A total of 276 pts were randomized (103 IPI-N [2 Q3W, n = 51; 10 Q3W, n = 52] and 173 IPI-R [2 Q3W, n = 89; 10 Q3W, n = 84]. In both cohorts, treatment arms were well balanced for known prognostic factors. As of the 10/18/2013 cutoff, all IPI-N and 47% of IPI-T pts had ≥9 mo of follow-up. Among evaluable pts, no significant differences in ORR by RECIST were observed between doses in IPI-N (33% vs 40%) or IPI-R (26% vs 26%) pts. By RECIST, response duration ranged from 6+ wk to 39+ wk in both cohorts (median not reached), with ~90% of responses ongoing. PFS by RECIST was similar between doses. The safety profile was generally similar between pts treated with 2 Q3W and 10 Q3W. There were no drug-related deaths. Conclusions: MK-3475 2 mg/kg Q3W and 10 mg/kg Q3W provided similar efficacy and safety in both IPI-N pts and IPI-R pts. Treatment was well tolerated with acceptable toxicity profile. The high ORR provided by MK-3475 comes with long durability in both IPI-N and IPI-R MEL. Clinical trial information: NCT01295827. RECIST 1.1 irRC 2 Q3W 10 Q3W 2-sided P 2 Q3W 10 Q3W 2-sided P IPI-N ORR, % (95% CI) 33 (20-49) 40 (26-56) .4835 39 (26-54) 40 (27-55) .9040 Response duration, wk, range 7+ – 36+ 6+ – 39+ — 12+ – 42+ 10+ – 39+ — Median PFS, wk(95% CI) 27 (12-NR) 23 (12-48) — 36 (13-NR) 26 (12-NR) — 24-wk PFS, % 51 48 — 60 50 — IPI-R ORR, % (95% CI) 26 (17-37) 26 (17-38) .9558 27 (18-37) 32 (22-43) .4568 Response duration, wk, range 6+ – 37+ 8+ – 37+ — 12+ – 42+ 4+ – 37+ — Median PFS, wk (95% CI) 22 (12-36) 14 (12-24) — 31 (22-48) 35 (24-NR) — 24-wk PFS, % 45 37 — 57 57 —

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysFrench-language works237,207