Patient-reported outcomes in KEYNOTE-006, a randomised study of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Report results of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms from phase III KEYNOTE-006 study of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naive advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 (Q2W) or every 3 weeks (Q3W) for up to 2 years, or four cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was administered at baseline and throughout the study. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) analyses were pre-specified exploratory endpoints; the primary PRO assessment was the score change from baseline to week 12 in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/HRQoL score between the arms using constrained longitudinal data analysis. RESULTS: The PRO analysis population included 776 patients: pembrolizumab Q2W (n = 270); pembrolizumab Q3W (n = 266); ipilimumab (n = 240). Baseline GHS was similar across arms. QLQ-C30 compliance rates at week 12 were 87% (n = 214), 97% (n = 226), and 96% (n = 178), for the pembrolizumab Q2W, pembrolizumab Q3W, and ipilimumab arms, respectively. From baseline to week 12, GHS/HRQoL scores were better maintained with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab (decrease of -1.9 and -2.5 for pembrolizumab versus -10.0 for ipilimumab; p < 0.001 for each pembrolizumab arm versus ipilimumab). Fewer patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced deterioration in GHS at week 12 (31% for pembrolizumab Q2W; 29% for Q3W and 44% for ipilimumab), with similar trends observed for individual functioning and symptoms scales. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was better maintained with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naive advanced melanoma. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01866319.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".