Phase 2 study of pembrolizumab (pembro) monotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC): KEYNOTE-086 cohort A.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1008 Background: In KEYNOTE-012, pembro showed durable activity and manageable safety in patients (pts) with PD-L1+ mTNBC. Cohort A of KEYNOTE-086 (NCT02447003) examined the efficacy/safety of pembro in previously treated mTNBC, regardless of PD-L1 expression. Methods: Pts with centrally confirmed mTNBC, ≥1 prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and ECOG PS 0-1 had pembro 200 mg Q3W for up to 24 mo; imaging q 9 wk for the first 12 mo, then q 12 wk. Clinically stable pts with PD could remain on pembro until PD confirmed on next assessment. Primary endpoints: ORR (RECIST v1.1, central review) in all pts and pts with PD-L1+ tumors, and safety. Secondary endpoints: DOR, disease control rate (DCR; CR + PR + SD ≥24 wk), PFS, and OS. Planned enrollment was 160 pts; analysis based on data as of Nov 10, 2016. Results: 60% of screened PD-L1-evaluable pts had PD-L1+ tumors (combined positive score ≥1%). Of 170 pts enrolled (100% women; median age 54 y), 44% had ≥3 prior lines of therapy, 51% had elevated LDH, 74% had visceral mets and 62% had PD-L1+ tumors. After a median follow-up of 10.9 mo, 9 (5%) pts remained on pembro. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) of any grade and grade 3-4 occurred in 60% and 12% of pts, respectively; 4% discontinued due to TRAEs. There were no deaths due to AE. Overall ORR was 5% regardless of PD-L1 expression (Table). Best overall response was 0.6% CR, 4% PR, 21% SD; not evaluable (3%). DCR was 8% (95% CI 4-13). Median DOR was 6.3 mo (range 1.2+ to 10.3+); 5 (63%) responders w/o PD at data cutoff. Median PFS and OS were 2.0 mo (95% CI 1.9-2.0) and 8.9 mo (95% CI 7.2-11.2), with 6-mo rates of 12% and 69%, respectively. ORR was numerically lower in pts with poor prognostic factors (e.g., high LDH, liver/visceral mets; Table). Conclusions: In KEYNOTE-086 Cohort A, pembro monotherapy showed manageable safety and durable responses in a subset of pts with heavily pretreated mTNBC. Randomized studies of monotherapy and combination therapy are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02447003. [Table: see text]
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".