IMpower131: Primary PFS and safety analysis of a randomized phase III study of atezolizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel vs carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel as 1L therapy in advanced squamous NSCLC.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA9000 Background: Atezolizumab (atezo; anti–PD-L1) demonstrated OS benefit vs docetaxel in 2L+ NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 status or tumor histology. Because cytotoxic agents can exhibit positive immunomodulatory effects, combining atezo with chemotherapy may further improve outcomes. IMpower131 (NCT02367794) was designed to evaluate atezo + carboplatin (carbo) + paclitaxel (pac) or nab-paclitaxel (nab-pac) in 1L stage IV squamous NSCLC. Methods: Patients (pts) were randomized 1:1:1 to Arm A (atezo 1200 mg q3w + carbo AUC 6 q3w + pac 200 mg/m2 q3w), Arm B (atezo + carbo + nab-pac 100 mg/m2 weekly) or Arm C (carbo + nab-pac). Pts received chemotherapy for 4 or 6 cycles and atezo until loss of clinical benefit. We present the primary analysis of investigator (INV)-assessed PFS per RECIST v1.1 in the ITT population for Arm B vs Arm C. Data cutoff: 22 January 2018. Results: 338 pts (Arm A), 343 pts (Arm B) and 340 pts (Arm C) were enrolled. Minimum follow-up was 9.8 mo. INV-assessed median PFS was 6.3 mo in Arm B vs 5.6 mo in Arm C (HR, 0.715; 95% CI: 0.603, 0.848; P = 0.0001). PFS benefit was enriched in all PD-L1–positive IHC subgroups and was most pronounced in TC3 or IC3. AEs related to any treatment (TRAEs) were 91.3% (Arm A), 94.6% (Arm B) and 90.7% (Arm C); Grade 3-4 TRAEs were 42.8% (Arm A), 68.0% (Arm B) and 56.9% (Arm C); serious TRAEs were 22.3% (Arm A), 20.4% (Arm B) and 10.5% (Arm C). Preliminary OS data will be presented. Conclusions: IMpower131 met its co-primary endpoint of INV-assessed PFS in the ITT population in Arm B vs Arm C. The safety profile of atezo + carbo + nab-pac or pac was consistent with the known risks of the individual treatment components; no new safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT02367794. [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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".