MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Avelumab treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: Post-hoc analysis of high-risk populations in the phase Ib JAVELIN Solid Tumor Study.

2019· article· en· W2922191218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea B. Apolo, Manish R. Patel, John Ellerton, Luc Dirix, Juliane Manitz, Vijay Kasturi, John D. Warth, Galit Rosen, James L. Gulley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAvelumabMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaInternal medicineJavelinResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsOncologyAdverse effectUrologyNeutropeniaGastroenterologyChemotherapyPhases of clinical researchCancerUrothelial carcinomaImmunotherapyBladder cancerNivolumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

428 Background: Avelumab is a human anti‒PD-L1 IgG1 antibody approved in the US, Canada, and Israel for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) progressed after platinum chemotherapy. In the JAVELIN Solid Tumor study, patients (pts) in various subgroups had a favorable objective response rate (ORR) with avelumab. Here, we report further post hoc analyses of safety and efficacy outcomes with avelumab in high-risk mUC subgroups. Methods: Pts with mUC that had progressed after platinum-based therapy in the JAVELIN Solid Tumor study were analyzed. Best overall response (per RECIST 1.1) was adjudicated by an independent review committee. ORR, disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse event (AE) profiles for pre-specified subgroups of high-risk pts were compared. Results: 242 pts with mUC received avelumab and were followed up for ≥2 years (data cutoff, Apr 2018). No difference was found in ORR between pts with renal insufficiency (creatine clearance [CrCl], <60 mL/min; n=107) and pts with CrCl ≥60 mL/min (n=131; 17.8% [95% CI: 11.0-26.3] vs 15.3% [95% CI: 9.6-22.6]) or between pts with upper (n=56) vs lower tract tumors (n=186; 14.3% [95% CI: 6.4-26.2] vs 17.2% [95% CI: 12.1-23.4]). ORR in pts with baseline liver metastases (n=83) was 6.0% (95% CI: 2.0-13.5) vs 22.0% (95% CI: 15.8-29.3) in pts without (n=159). ORR in elderly pts (≥75 years; n=68) was 25.0% (95% CI: 15.3-37.0) vs 13.2% (95% CI: 8.6-19.2) in younger pts (n=174). ORR in pts with albumin ≥35 g/L (n=197) was 19.8% (95% CI: 14.5-26.1) vs 2.2% (95% CI: 0.1-11.8) in pts with <35 g/L (n=45). Except for the albumin levels and age subgroups (where the trend in ORR was not confirmed), subgroups showed DCR and PFS that were consistent with ORR trends. AE profiles did not exhibit any higher risk of adverse effects in these subgroups. Conclusions: Responses to avelumab occurred in select assessed subgroups previously defined as poor prognostic or high risk, suggesting that immunotherapy may achieve comparable efficacy irrespective of factors such as site of disease and renal status; no difference in safety profiles was identified. Clinical trial information: NCT01772004.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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