MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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.

2019· article· en· W2958944135 on OpenAlexaffabout
Edward B. Garon, Niels Reinmuth, L. Falchero, Yolanda García García, J. Hureaux, Ira Gore, Ronald P. Harris, Paolo Bidoli, Editta Baldini, Silverio Ros, Eckart Laack, Paul Mitchell, M. Wolf, Kenneth J. O’Byrne, L. Zibdawi, Kevin Jao, David R. Spigel, Ang Li, Sridhar K. Rabindran, Éric Pichon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalSouthlake Regional Health Center
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDosingInterim analysisNivolumabInternal medicineSafety profilePharmacokineticsRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyOncologyAdverse effectCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207