MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Two-year follow-up from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 trial of pembrolizumab (pembro) vs investigator’s choice (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine) in recurrent, advanced urothelial cancer (UC).

2018· article· en· W2794297331 on OpenAlexaff
Joaquim Bellmunt, Ronald de Wit, David J. Vaughn, Yves Fradet, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Lawrence Fong, Nicholas J. Vogelzang, Miguel Ángel Climent, Daniel P. Petrylak, Toni K. Choueiri, Andrea Necchi, Winald R. Gerritsen, Howard Gurney, David I. Quinn, Stéphane Culine, Cora N. Sternberg, Kijoeng Nam, Tara L. Frenkl, Rodolfo F. Perini, Dean F. Bajorin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocetaxelMedicinePembrolizumabInternal medicinePaclitaxelRegimenClinical endpointOncologyChemotherapyCancerClinical trialImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

410 Background: Based on interim results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 (NCT02256436) study comparing pembro v investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (chemo), pembro was approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic UC that has progressed during or after a platinum-containing regimen. Updated results after 2 years of follow-up are presented. Methods: Eligible patients (histologically or cytologically confirmed UC, progression after platinum, ECOG PS 0-2, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ≤2 lines of systemic therapy) were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W or investigator’s choice of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W, docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Q3W, or vinflunine 320 mg/m2 Q3W. Primary efficacy end points were OS and PFS (RECIST v1.1, blinded central review). ORR (RECIST v1.1, blinded central review) was a secondary end point. Results: As of Oct 26, 2017, among the 542 enrolled patients (pembro, 270; chemo, 272), median follow-up was 27.7 mo. Median OS was significantly longer with pembro v chemo (10.3 v 7.3 mo; HR, 0.70; P < 0.0002). OS benefit with pembro v chemo was seen in all PD-L1 expression subgroups (HR: combined positive score [CPS] < 1, 0.82; CPS ≥1, 0.58; CPS < 10, 0.75; CPS ≥10, 0.56) and was maintained regardless of age, ECOG PS, prior therapy, liver metastases, baseline hemoglobin, time from last chemo, histology, risk factor group, and choice of chemo. PFS was not different between arms (2.1 v 3.3 mo; HR, 0.96; P = 0.32). ORR was higher with pembro v chemo (21.1% v 11.0%). Median duration of response was longer with pembro (not reached [1.6+–30.3+ mo] v 4.4 mo [1.4+–29.9+ mo]), and a greater proportion of responses lasted ≥12 mo (68% v 35%) as assessed by Kaplan-Meier method. Fewer patients with pembro v chemo experienced a treatment-related adverse event of any grade (62.0% v 90.6%) and a grade ≥3 adverse event (16.5% v 50.2%). Conclusions: Results observed over 2 years of follow-up, including OS benefit and superior safety with pembro v chemo, were consistent with the interim analyses that led to the approval of pembro in locally advanced or metastatic UC that progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02256436.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207