MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898547742 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy289

KEYNOTE-022 Part 3: Phase II randomized study of 1L dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) plus pembrolizumab (Pembro) or placebo (PBO) for BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma

2018· article· fr· W2898547742 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo A. Ascierto, Pier Francesco Ferrucci, Rosalie Stephens, Michele Del Vecchio, Victoria Atkinson, Henrik Schmidt, Jacob Schachter, Paola Queirolo, Georgina V. Long, Anna Maria Di Giacomo, Inge Marie Svane, Michal Lotem, Gil Bar‐Sela, Félix Couture, Bijoyesh Mookerjee, Razi Ghori, Nageatte Ibrahim, Blanca Homet Moreno, Antoni Ribas

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDabrafenibMedicineTolerabilityDiscontinuationPembrolizumabInternal medicinePlaceboClinical endpointGastroenterologyNuclear medicineClinical trialAdverse effectMetastatic melanomaImmunotherapyCancerPathologyVemurafenib

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pembro + D + T had promising antitumor activity and acceptable tolerability in phase 1 of KEYNOTE-022 (NCT02130466). Methods: In the double-blind phase 2 part of KEYNOTE-022, pts with treatment (tx)-naive BRAFV600E/K-mutant stage III/IV melanoma were randomly assigned (stratified by ECOG PS [0/1)]; LDH level [>1.1 vs ≤ 1.1× ULN]) to pembro 2 mg/kg Q3W + D 150 mg BID + T 2 mg QD or PBO + D + T. Strata with ECOG PS 1 and either LDH level were combined due to small numbers. Primary end point was PFS. Significance requirements to reject null hypothesis at 1-sided 0.025 type I error: ∼74 PFS events for 80% power; observed HR ≤ 0.62. Additional end points included ORR, DOR, TTR, and OS. Data cutoff: Feb 15, 2018. Results: Of 60 pts in each arm, most baseline characteristics were balanced (stage IV disease, 98% in pembro + D + T vs 95% in PBO + D + T; ECOG PS 0, 80% both; LDH >1.1× ULN, 45% vs 43%). Median follow-up for both arms was 9.6 mo (range 2.7-23.4). 67% vs 70% received ≥12 mo tx. Median PFS was 16.0 mo (95% CI 8.6-21.5) with pembro + D + T vs 10.3 mo (95% CI 7.0-15.6) with PBO + D + T; HR, 0.66; P = 0.04287; 12-mo PFS rates were 59% vs 45%. ORR was 63% vs 72%; CR rates were 18% vs 13%. Median TTR was 2.8 mo in each arm; median DOR was 18.7 mo (range 1.9+ to 22.1) vs 12.5 (2.1-19.5+). More patients (60%) on pembro + D + T had responses lasting ≥18 mo vs PBO + D + T (28%). OS rates at 12 mo were 80% vs 73%. Any grade (G) treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 95% vs 93% and G3-5 TRAEs occurred in 58% vs 27% of pts. G3-5 TRAEs occurring in ≥ 5% of pts were pyrexia (10% vs 3%), increased ALT (7% vs 5%), increased AST (8% vs 5%), increased GGT (7% vs 5%), rash (5% vs 2%), and neutropenia (2% vs 5%). 40% vs 20% of pts discontinued any of the 3 study tx due to TRAEs, and 1 pt died due to a TRAE (pneumonitis) in the pembro + D + T arm. Immune-mediated AEs occurred in 43% vs 13% of pts, most commonly pneumonitis (15% vs 2%), hypothyroidism (8% vs 2%), skin disorders (7% vs 2%), hyperthyroidism (5% vs 0%), and uveitis (5% vs 3%); most resolved with tx discontinuation/modification. Conclusions: Pembro + D + T vs PBO + D + T demonstrated numerically longer PFS and DOR and a higher rate of G3-5 TRAEs in pts with tx-naive BRAFV600E/K-mutant advanced melanoma. Clinical trial identification: NCT02130466. Editorial acknowledgement: Medical writing and/or editorial assistance was provided by Doyel Mitra, PhD, of the ApotheCom pembrolizumab team (Yardley, PA, USA). This assistance was funded by Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Legal entity responsible for the study: Merck & Co., Inc. Funding: Merck & Co., Inc. Disclosure: P.A. Ascierto: Advisory board member: BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Array, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, Genmab, Newlink Genetics, Medimmune, Syndax, AstraZeneca; Research funding: BMS, Roche-Genentech, Array. P.F. Ferrucci: Advisory board member: BMS, Novartis, MSD; Research funding: BMS, MSD; Honoraria, travel expenses, accommodations: BMS, Novartis, MSD, Roche. R. Stephens: Honoraria, travel expenses: MSD NZ. M. Del Vecchio: Consultant, advisor, research funds: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp and Dohme. V. Atkinson: Advisory board member: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre; Speakers’ bureau: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche; Honoraria: BMS, MSD, Novartis; Travel expenses: BMS, MSD. H. Schmidt: Advisory board member: BMS, MSD, Incyte, Roche; Speakers’ bureau: BMS, Novartis; Research funding: MSD; BMS. J. Schachter: Honoraria, consultant/advisory, travel, accomodations, expenses: BMS, MSD. P. Queirolo: Advisory board member, speakers' bureau, honoraria, travel expenses, accommodations: BMS, Roche, Novartis, MSD. G.V. Long, A.M. Di Giacomo: Advisory board member: Incyte, GSK, Pierre Fabre; Honoraria: BMS, Roche, MSD; Travel expenses, including accommodations: BMS, Roche. I. Svane: Honoraria/Consulting fees: Roche, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Celgene, Incyte, Pfizer, BMS, AstraZeneca, TILT Bio, IO Biotech; Stock (co-founder): IO Biotech. M. Lotem: Advisory board member: Merck; Honoraria: Merck, BMS; Travel expenses, accommodations: Merck, BMS, Novartis. G. Bar-Sela: Research funding: Merck. B.P. Mookerjee: Employee: Novartis; Stock: Novartis, GSK, AstraZeneca. R. Ghori, N. Ibrahim, B. Homet Moreno: Employee: Merck & Co., Inc. A. Ribas: Stock ownership: Lutris, PACT, Tango; Advisory board member: Advaxis, Arcus, BioncoTech, Compugen, CytomX, Five Prime, FLX-Bio, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Kite-Gilead, Rgenix; Honoraria: Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Genentech, Merck, Novartis, Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysFrench-language works237,207