CheckMate 649: A randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III study of nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) or nivo + chemotherapy (CTX) versus CTX alone in patients with previously untreated advanced (Adv) gastric (G) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TPS192 Background: Pts with adv G/GEJ cancer have an OS of ≈ 1 y, indicating an unmet medical need for new first-line treatments. Expression of PD-L1 is observed in up to 40% of pts with G/GEJ cancer and is associated with poor prognosis. In the randomized phase 3 ATTRACTION-2 study, NIVO demonstrated superior overall survival vs placebo with a 38% reduction of the risk of death (median OS, 5.3 vs 4.1 mo; HR, 0.62 P< 0.0001) and increased the OS rate at 12 mo (27% vs 12%; Boku N et al ESMO 2017) in pts with adv CTX-R (≥ 2 lines) G/GEJ cancer. In the phase 1/2 CheckMate-032 study in pts with CTX-R G/GEJ/esophageal cancer (79% ≥ 2 prior Tx lines), NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg had a manageable safety profile and resulted in 24% ORR (40% ORR in pts with PD-L1 + tumors), a median OS of 6.9 mo, and a 35% OS rate at 12 mo (Janjigian Y et al ASCO 2017). In the phase 1 CheckMate-012 trial, NIVO + CTX had clinical activity and manageable safety in pts with NSCLC (Rizvi NA et al J Clin Oncol 2016). These positive results support investigation of NIVO, NIVO + IPI, and NIVO + CTX in earlier lines of treatment for G/GEJ cancer. The open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 649 trial will evaluate NIVO + IPI and NIVO + CTX vs CTX alone as first-line treatment for pts with adv G/GEJ cancer (NCT02872116). Methods: 1266 pts aged ≥ 18 y with untreated, inoperable adv/metastatic G/GEJ cancer (histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma) regardless of PD-L1 status will be randomized to receive either NIVO + IPI, NIVO + CTX (capecitabine/oxaliplatin [XELOX] or fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]), or investigator choice of XELOX or FOLFOX. Tumor tissue for determination of PD-L1 status (Dako assay) must be provided from ≤ 6 mo before study treatment. No prior systemic treatment, including HER2 inhibitors, are allowed. Pts with known HER2 + status, suspected autoimmune disease, grade > 1 peripheral neuropathy, or active infection are excluded. Primary endpoint is OS in pts with PD-L1 + (≥ 1%) tumors. Other endpoints include OS in all pts; PFS and time to symptom deterioration in all pts and in pts with PD-L1 + tumors; and safety. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".