MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Randomized phase I trial of pembrolizumab with neo-adjuvant versus concomitant stereotactic body radiotherapy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: Clinical and translational results.

2019· article· en· W2921604675 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian Vandekerkhove, Nora Sundahl, Karel Decaestecker, Annabel Meireson, Pieter De Visschere, Valérie Fonteyne, Daan De Maeseneer, Dries Reynders, Els Goetghebeur, Jo Van Dorpe, Sofie Verbeke, Matti Annala, Liève Brochez, Kim Van der Eecken, Alexander W. Wyatt, Sylvie Rottey, Piet Ost

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabAdverse effectConcomitantCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialOncologyResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsClinical trialSurgeryPhases of clinical researchCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

422 Background: Preclinical data indicates that stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) works synergistically with pembrolizumab, but the effect and potential toxicity might depend on the timing of SBRT. The current study assessed the safety of two different SBRT schedules in combination with pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), and explored correlative biomarkers including circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Methods: An open-label phase 1 trial was conducted at Ghent University Hospital in patients with mUC to assess the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of the combination of pembrolizumab (200mg intravenously, 3-weekly) and SBRT (3x8Gy to the largest lesion). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive SBRT either prior to the first (arm A) or the third (arm B) cycle of pembrolizumab. Blood was collected throughout the trial for biomarker analysis. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Secondary endpoints included best overall response measured per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 (RECISTv1.1). The trial was approved by the Ethical Committee of Ghent University Hospital and is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02826564). Funding was provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Results: Eighteen patients were randomized (nine to each arm) and started trial treatment. No DLT occurred. Treatment-related AEs grade 1-2 occurred in 6/9 and 9/9 patients in arm A and B respectively. One patient in arm B experienced lymphopenia grade 3, unrelated to SBRT. No treatment-related AEs grade 4-5 occurred. An objective response rate as per RECISTv1.1 of 0% and 44·4% was noted in arm A and B respectively. Targeted sequencing of tissue DNA and ctDNA revealed high genomic concordance. A decline in ctDNA was observed in responding patients. Conclusions: Neo-adjuvant and concomitant SBRT combined with pembrolizumab is safe, with potentially superior responses in the latter. ctDNA monitoring is feasible during disease evolution and suggests a shared driver gene status throughout disease progression. Clinical trial information: NCT02826564.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→