MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A randomized phase 2 study of durvalumab monotherapy and in combination with tremelimumab in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC): ALPS study.

2018· article· en· W2792916595 on OpenAlexaff
Eileen M. O’Reilly, Do‐Youn Oh, Neesha C. Dhani, Daniel J. Renouf, Myung Ah Lee, Weijing Sun, George A. Fisher, Aram F. Hezel, Shao-Chun Chang, Gordana Vlahovic, Osamu Takahashi, Yin Yang, Philip Agop Philip

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTremelimumabDurvalumabInternal medicineAdverse effectClinical endpointDiarrheaGemcitabineGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialCombination therapyOncologyPopulationCancerIpilimumabImmunotherapyNivolumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

217 Background: Durvalumab (D) and tremelimumab (T), monoclonal antibodies against PD-L1 and CTLA-4 immune checkpoints, have shown efficacy as monotherapy/combination therapy in multiple cancer types. Herein, we report a randomized phase 2 study to evaluate efficacy and safety of D monotherapy with or without T (D+T) in previously treated mPDAC. Methods: Part A was a lead-in safety and signal-seeking study with plans to expand to Part B as a nonrandomized or randomized controlled study pending efficacy signal. Eligible pts had progressive disease (PD) following front-line 5-FU- or gemcitabine-based therapy. In Part A, pts were randomized to D (1.5 g IV Q4W) or D+T (D 1.5 g IV + T 75 mg IV Q4W × 4 doses → D 1.5 g IV Q4W) for up to 12 months (mo) or until confirmed PD or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate per RECIST 1.1. Results: In Part A, 65 pts were randomized to D (n = 33) or D+T (n = 32). Due to a pretreatment death, 64 pts received therapy. Eleven pts (34.4%) in D+T and 10 (31.3%) in D had treatment-related adverse events (trAEs); 7 (22%) in D+T and 2 (6%) in D had grade ≥3 trAEs. Common trAEs: fatigue (12.5%), diarrhea (12.5%), and hypothyroidism (9.4%) in D+T; fatigue (9.4%), diarrhea (6.3%), and pruritus (6.3%) in D. Grade ≥3 trAEs were diarrhea (9.4%), fatigue (6.3%) in D+T and ascites (3.1%), hepatitis (3.1%), and increased lipase (3.1%) in D. In D+T, 3 (9.4%) pts and 1 (3.1%) in D discontinued therapy due to trAEs. No trAEs resulted in death. In D+T, 1 (3.1%) pt had a durable confirmed partial response (PR) > 12 mo and disease control rate (DCR) was 9.4%. In D, 2 (6.1%) pts had unconfirmed PRs, and the DCR was 6.1%. Median PFS in both arms was 1.5 mo, and median OS was 3.1 mo in D+T and 3.6 mo in D. Biomarker analyses (tumor mutation burden, PD-L1 and microsatellite status) are currently being evaluated. Conclusions: Typical safety profiles were observed for D or D+T in mPDAC. Part B was not enrolled as the threshold for efficacy was not met in Part A. D and D+T had modest activity in second-line non-selected mPDAC, underpinning the need for multimodal immune-based combinations to overcome intrinsic resistance in this disease. Clinical trial information: NCT02558894.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207