Checkmate-040: Nivolumab (NIVO) in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and Child-Pugh B (CPB) status.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
327 Background: Pts with aHCC and CPB liver status are often excluded from clinical trials of novel therapies due to their poor prognosis (Greten British J Cancer 2005). Historical overall survival (OS) for these pts when treated with sorafenib (SOR) has ranged ≈3–5 mo in retrospective or descriptive studies (Abou-Alfa Gastrointest Cancer Res 2011; Da Fonseca Mol Clin Oncol 2015; Pressiani Ann Oncol 2013; Chiu Cancer 2012); thus, novel treatment options are needed for these pts. The PD-1 inhibitor NIVO is approved in the US, Canada, and elsewhere, most recently Australia, for SOR-treated pts with aHCC based on results from CheckMate-040 (NCT01658878) (El-Khoueiry Lancet 2017). Here we report data from the CPB cohort of CheckMate-040, the first prospective study of immunotherapy in this pt group. Methods: Pts with CPB (B7–B8) aHCC who were SOR-naïve (n = 25) or -experienced (n = 24) received NIVO 240 mg IV for 30 min Q2W until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) (investigator assessed [INV], RECIST v1.1) and duration of response (DOR). Safety was assessed in all treated pts using NCI CTCAE v4.0. Results: Of 49 analyzed pts, 28 (57.1%) had vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. During a follow-up range of 6–18 mo, INV ORR was 10.2% with 5 pts responding; disease control rate (DCR) was 55.1%. Median (m) time to response was 2.7 mo and mDOR was 9.9 mo; 2 pts had ongoing responses at data cutoff. The mOS was 7.6 mo (mOS follow-up was 7.4 mo); mOS in SOR-naïve and -treated pts was 9.8 and 7.3 mo, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 25 (51%) pts; 4 (8.2%) pts had select hepatic TRAEs. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 2 pts (4.1%). NIVO safety profile in these pts appeared comparable to cohorts of pts with CPA aHCC. Comparison data for pts with CPA aHCC and extended follow-up for pts with CPB aHCC will be presented. Conclusions: Encouraging DCR and durable responses were observed in pts with CPB aHCC treated with NIVO. AEs were manageable and did not lead to higher discontinuation compared with pts with CPA aHCC. NIVO showed promising efficacy and tolerability compared with historical data, supporting further investigation. Clinical trial information: NCT01658878.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".