MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) or IPI alone in phase II and III trials in advanced melanoma (MEL).

2017· article· en· W2890466450 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey S. Weber, James Larkin, Dirk Schadendorf, Jedd D. Wolchok, John Wagstaff, Reinhard Dummer, David Hogg, Massimo Guidoboni, Jeffrey A. Sosman, Bartosz Chmielowski, Winald R. Gerritsen, Rafia Bhore, René González

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIpilimumabInternal medicineNivolumabGastroenterologyAdverse effectPlaceboImmunotherapyCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9523 Background: NIVO and IPI are approved as monotherapy and in combination for treatment of MEL. These treatments are associated with select (potentially immune-related) adverse events (AEs) of the GI tract, most commonly diarrhea and colitis. We describe the management of GI toxicity in patients (pts) treated with NIVO+IPI or IPI from phase II (CheckMate 069) and III (CheckMate 067) trials. Methods: Pts received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W x 4, followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W until progression or unacceptable toxicity, or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W x 4, followed by placebo. Minimum follow-up was 2 yrs for CheckMate 069 and 18 months for CheckMate 067. Results: Of 407 pts treated with NIVO+IPI, 195 (48%) experienced any grade select GI AEs, and of 357 pts treated with IPI, 132 (37%) experienced any grade select GI AEs. Grade 3/4 select GI AEs were reported in 67 (16%) pts treated with NIVO+IPI and in 41 (11%) pts treated with IPI; median time to onset was 7.1 weeks (range 0.9-48.9) with NIVO+IPI and 7.3 weeks (range 0.6-14.9) with IPI. To manage these AEs, immune-modulating medications (IMM) were used in 61/67 (91%) pts in the NIVO+IPI group and in 41/41 (100%) in the IPI group. Corticosteroids (CS) were used in 61/67 (91%) and 41/41 (100%) pts, and infliximab (IFX) was used in 21/67 (31%) and 14/41 (34%) pts in the NIVO+IPI and IPI groups, respectively. In the NIVO+IPI group, the resolution rate of grade 3/4 select GI AEs was 96%, 97%, and 95% with a median time to resolution of 3.3, 3.0, and 3.9 weeks in all treated pts, CS, and CS+IFX managed pts, respectively; 88%, 92%, and 79% resolved with a median time to resolution of 3.9, 2.4, and 7.8 weeks in the IPI group, respectively. Objective response rates (ORR) were unchanged in the presence of any grade select GI AEs, or by using CS or CS+IFX (Table). Conclusions: NIVO+IPI or IPI alone is associated with a high incidence of GI select AEs, but most are effectively managed by IMMs, which do not appear to inhibit tumor response. Clinical trial information: NCT01844505; NCT01927419. [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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207