A phase III randomized study of adjuvant ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) versus high-dose interferon alfa-2b for resected high-risk melanoma (U.S. Intergroup E1609): Preliminary safety and efficacy of the ipilimumab arms.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9500 Background: In the U.S., 3 regimens have regulatory approval as adjuvant therapy for high-risk melanoma, including high-dose interferon-alfa (HDI) and ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (ipi10). Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) has regulatory approval for metastatic inoperable melanoma. The toxicity of ipi is dose- dependent, and following the recent approval of adjuvant ipi10, it has become urgent to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of adjuvant ipi at the 2 dose levels that have been tested in E1609. Methods: E1609 randomized patients (pts) with resected high-risk melanoma (stratified by stages IIIB, IIIC, M1a, M1b) to ipi10 or ipi3 versus HDI. Co-primary endpoints were RFS and OS. The current analysis investigates the relative safety and preliminary, non-comparative RFS of the ipi arms as of 3/2/17. Results: E1609 was activated on 5/25/11 and completed adult pt accrual on 8/15/14. Accrual to ipi10 was suspended due to toxicity between 9/23-11/16/2013. Final adult pt accrual was 1670 including 511 ipi10, 636 HDI and 523 ipi3 pts. Treatment related adverse events (AEs) were reported among 503 ipi10 and 516 ipi3 pts. Worst degree (Gr 3+) AEs were experienced by 57% ipi10 and 36.4% ipi3 pts and were mostly immune related (Table 1). AEs led to discontinuation of treatment in 271 (53.8 %) of 503 ipi10 and in 180 (35.2 %) of 512 ipi3 pts during the initial 4 dose induction phase. Gr5 AEs considered at least possibly related were 8 with ipi10 and 2 with ipi3. At a median follow-up of 3.1 years, an unplanned RFS analysis of ipi3 and ipi10 on concurrently randomized pts showed no difference between the 2 arms. Three-year RFS rate was 54% (95% CI: 49, 60) with ipi10 and 56% (50, 61) with ipi3. Conclusions: Adjuvant therapy of pts with high-risk melanoma is associated with significantly more toxicity at ipi10 compared to ipi3. An unplanned RFS analysis of concurrently randomized pts on the 2 ipi arms showed no difference in RFS. Clinical trial information: NCT01274338. [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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".