Pembrolizumab (pembro) for recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC): Post hoc analyses of phase 3 KEYNOTE-040 prior radiation treatment (RT) and disease state.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6026 Background: The open-label, randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-040 study (NCT02252042) showed that pembro vs standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy prolonged survival in patients (pts) with recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC whose disease progressed during/after platinum-based therapy. Post hoc analyses were conducted to evaluate pembro vs SOC by prior RT and disease state (metastatic, locoregionally recurrent [referred to as recurrent herein], or recurrent and metastatic [R/M]). Methods: Pts (N = 495) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive pembro (200 mg Q3W) or investigator choice of methotrexate (40 mg/m2 QW), docetaxel (75 mg/m2 Q3W), or cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose, then 250 mg/m2 QW). Primary end point was OS; PFS and ORR were secondary end points. Results: 175, 97, and 195 pts had metastatic, recurrent, and R/M disease, respectively (28 pts had unknown disease state); 64 pts had no prior RT; 431 pts had prior RT. As in the ITT population, prolonged survival benefit and trend toward improved PFS and ORR was observed with pembro vs SOC in pts with prior RT (Table), and prolonged survival benefit was observed with pembro vs SOC in pts with metastatic and R/M, but not recurrent, disease. Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, patients with prior RT benefited from treatment with pembro vs SOC. For patients without RT, sample sizes are too small to draw any definitive conclusions. Survival benefit of pembro vs SOC was observed in pts with metastatic and R/M disease. Clinical trial information: NCT02252042. [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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".