MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Phase 3, randomized study of pembrolizumab (pembro) vs best supportive care (BSC) for second-line advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): KEYNOTE-240.

2017· article· en· W2796046569 on OpenAlexaff
Richard S. Finn, Stephen L. Chan, Andrew X. Zhu, Jennifer J. Knox, Ann‐Lii Cheng, Abby B. Siegel, Oliver Bautista, Masatoshi Kudo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorafenibMedicinePembrolizumabPlaceboInternal medicineAdverse effectHepatocellular carcinomaResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsOncologyClinical trialSurgeryCancerPhases of clinical researchImmunotherapyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS4143 Background: The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib is the standard of care for first-line HCC; currently, there is no clear standard of care after disease progression on sorafenib or for patients (pts) with intolerance to sorafenib. Because most HCC is driven by inflammation, there is a strong rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in pts with this type of cancer. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 KEYNOTE-240 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02702401) was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of the anti–PD-1 antibody pembro + BSC vs placebo + BSC in pts with previously treated advanced HCC. Methods: Eligibility criteria include age ≥ 18 years, histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of HCC, documented progression after stopping treatment with sorafenib or intolerance to sorafenib, disease not amenable to a curative treatmentapproach (eg, transplantation, surgery, or ablation), measurable disease confirmed by central imaging vendor review per RECIST v1.1, Child-Pugh liver score A, ECOG performance status 0-1, and predicted life expectancy > 3 months. Pts will be randomly assigned 2:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV Q3W + BSC or placebo Q3W + BSC for up to 35 cycles (~2 years) or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or investigator decision. Randomization will be stratified by geographic region, presence of macrovascular invasion, and α-fetoprotein level. BSC will be provided by the investigator per local treatment practices. Response will be assessed every 6 weeks per RECIST v1.1 by central imaging vendor review. Adverse events (AEs) will be assessed throughout treatment and for 30 days thereafter (90 days for serious AEs) and graded per NCI CTCAE v4.0. Primary objectives are comparison of progression-free survival per RECIST v1.1 by central imaging vendor review and overall survival between treatment arms. Secondary objectives are comparison of objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, and time to progression per RECIST v1.1 by central imaging vendor review; and evaluation of safety and tolerability. Planned enrollment in KEYNOTE-240 is 408 pts across 26 countries. Clinical trial information: NCT02702401.

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)0.003
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→