MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mature overall survival (OS) results from the LUME-Meso study of nintedanib (N) + pemetrexed/cisplatin (PEM/CIS) vs placebo (P) + PEM/CIS in chemo-naïve patients (pts) with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

2017· article· en· W2734805236 on OpenAlexaff
Anna K. Nowak, Federica Grosso, Nicola Steele, Silvia Novello, Sanjay Popat, Laurent Greillier, Natasha B. Leighl, Martin Reck, Nick Pavlakis, Jens Benn Soerensen, David Planchard, Giovanni Luca Ceresoli, Brett Hughes, Julien Mazières, Mark A. Socinski, Derek Velema, Ute von Wangenheim, Nassim Morsli, Giorgio V. Scagliotti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada)Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineGastroenterologyProgression-free survivalClinical endpointPemetrexedConfidence intervalPlaceboUrologyRandomized controlled trialCisplatinChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8506 Background: LUME-Meso is a Phase (Ph) II/III, double-blind, randomized study. N targets MPM by inhibiting VEGFR 1–3, PDGFR α/β, FGFR 1–3, Src and Abl kinases. Primary analysis of the Ph II data demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR]=0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.91; p=0.017). Mature Ph 2 OS and updated PFS results are reported here. Methods: Pts with unresectable MPM (ECOG PS 0–1) were stratified by histology (epithelioid/biphasic) and randomized 1:1 to receive ≤6 cycles PEM (500 mg/m2)/CIS (75 mg/m2) Day 1 + N or P (200 mg bid, Days 2–21), followed by N or P monotherapy until progression or toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. The primary OS analysis and updated PFS analysis were performed as predefined. Results: 87 pts were randomly assigned (N=44, P=43). OS benefit favored N over P treatment (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.46–1.29; p=0.319; 62 [71%] OS events) and was greatest in epithelioid pts (HR=0.70; 95% CI 0.40–1.21; p=0.197) with a median (m) OS gain of 5.4 months (mOS [95% CI]: 20.6 [16.2–28.8] N vs 15.2 [12.2–23.6] P). Updated PFS results (HR=0.54; 95% CI 0.33–0.87; p=0.010) also showed greatest benefit for epithelioid pts (HR=0.49; 95% CI 0.30–0.82; p=0.006) with a mPFS gain of 4.0 months (mPFS [95% CI]: 9.7 [7.2–12.4] N vs 5.7 [5.5–7.0] P). Improved forced vital capacity, objective response rates and duration of response were also observed with N treatment. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) in N- vs P-treated pts were 97.7% vs 97.6%. Grade ≥3 AEs of note included neutropenia (27.3% vs 4.9%), ALT (11.4% vs 0) and GGT (6.8% vs 0) elevations, and diarrhea (6.8% vs 0). AEs led to trial discontinuation in only 3 (6.8%) N vs 7 (17.1%) P pts. Conclusions: Mature Ph II OS data show that adding N to standard 1st-line treatment gives a strong signal towards improved OS. Updated PFS confirmed the primary analysis; AEs were manageable. The greatest clinical benefit was observed in pts with epithelioid histology. Median survival of 20.6 months in epithelioid pts treated with N is unprecedented in advanced MPM trials. Ph III is actively recruiting in this pt population. Clinical trial information: NCT01907100.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207