CheckMate 384: Phase IIIb/IV trial of nivolumab (nivo) 480 mg Q4W versus 240 mg Q2W after ≤ 12 months of nivo in previously treated advanced NSCLC.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
100 Background: Nivo is approved as 240 mg Q2W in the EU and Japan and 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W in the US and Canada for second-line treatment (tx) of advanced NSCLC. Pharmacokinetic modeling in various tumors predicts that exposure, efficacy and safety can be maintained with less frequent Q4W dosing, which may provide a more convenient tx option. We present an interim analysis of efficacy and safety from CheckMate 384 (NCT02713867), an international, open-label, randomized phase 3b/4 trial evaluating less frequent nivo dosing (480 mg Q4W vs 240 mg Q2W) in patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC and prior Q2W nivo tx. Methods: Pts (N = 329) with previously treated histologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV or recurrent NSCLC, ECOG performance status 0–2, and prior tx with nivo 3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W for ≤12 mo, with ≥2 consecutive assessments of complete / partial response or stable disease, were randomized 1:1 to nivo 480 mg Q4W or 240 mg Q2W over a 30-min infusion. Co-primary endpoints: post-randomization (RND) progression-free survival rates (PFS) at 6 mo and 1 y. Secondary endpoints included safety. Due to tx landscape changes in NSCLC, statistical analyses were amended for a reduced sample size. One-sided 95% CIs were generated to compare PFS rates; presented data analyses are descriptive. Results: Of 166 and 163 pts randomized to 480 mg Q4W and 240 mg Q2W, 164 and 161 pts were treated, respectively. Median follow-up was 9.5 mo (480 mg Q4W) and 10.2 mo (240 mg Q2W). Baseline characteristics were balanced between tx arms. Stratified PFS rates post-RND were comparable between tx arms at 6 mo and 1 y (Table). Safety profiles were similar; any grade tx-related adverse events (TRAEs) and TRAEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 48% vs 61% and 6% vs 9% of pts with 480 mg Q4W vs 240 mg Q2W. No tx-related deaths were reported. Conclusions: Nivo 480 mg Q4W showed similar efficacy and safety to 240 mg Q2W in pts with disease control on nivo, supporting the potential use of 480 mg Q4W as a more convenient dosing option for second-line NSCLC tx. Clinical trial information: NCT02713867. [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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".