MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Results from BLASST-1 (Bladder Cancer Signal Seeking Trial) of nivolumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing cystectomy.

2020· article· en· W3007839305 on OpenAlexaff
Shilpa Gupta, Guru Sonpavde, Christopher Weight, Bradley A. McGregor, Sumati Gupta, Benjamin L. Maughan, Xiao X. Wei, Ewan A. Gibb, Bharat Thyagarajan, David J. Einstein, Christopher Dechet, William T. Lowrance, Paari Murugan, Kerry L. Kilbridge, Neeraj Agarwal, Elai Davicioni, Markus Eckstein, Matthew Mossanen, Mark A. Preston, Badrinath R. Konety

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyNivolumabBladder cancerGemcitabineOncologyInternal medicineCisplatinPopulationClinical endpointUrologyChemotherapyCancerImmunotherapyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

439 Background: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in MIBC improves survival which correlates with pathologic response (PaR) at radical cystectomy (RC). The combination of immunotherapy and NAC may improve PaR and outcomes in MIBC. We tested the efficacy and safety of nivolumab (N) with gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) as neoadjuvant therapy for MIBC in our phase II trial (NCT03294304). Methods: Eligible pts with MIBC (cT2-T4a, N≤1, M0) who were candidates for RC were enrolled. Pts received C (70mg/m2) IV on D1, G (1000mg/m2) on D1,D8 and N (360 mg) IV on D8 every 21 days for 4 cycles followed by RC within 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was PaR (≤pT1,N0). Secondary objectives were safety of GC+N and PFS at 2 years. The correlative objectives based on pre-treatment biopsies were correlation of PaR with 1) WGS 2) molecular subtypes of BC; 3) PD-L1 expression; 4) baseline TILs, CD3, CD8 and CD56.. Evaluable pts. should have received at least 1 dose of N. PaR will be summarized by the PaR rate as estimated by the sample proportion with exact 95% confidence intervals. We specified a null PaR of 0.35 and an alternative hypothesis of 0.55; we will reject the null hypothesis if at least 20 of 41 pts. have a PaR. Results: Between Feb 2018 and June 2019, 41 pts. were enrolled (cT2N0 90%, cT3N0 7%, cT4N1 3%); 2 patients refused surgery but were included in ITT population. PaR was observed in 27/41 pts. (65.8%), including pts with N1 disease. The combination was safe with manageable toxicities and no deaths from treatment. Majority of AEs were from GC; the overall rates of grade 3-4 AEs was 20%, majority being neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and renal insufficiency. Immune related AEs were seen in 3 patients, 2 had "adenitis" which wasymptomatic,1 pt developed Guillian Barre Syndrome after surgery, which resolved with IVIG; and none of them required steroids. There was no delay in time to RC and no unexpected surgical complications from treatment. Patients are being followed for progression and survival. Correlative work is ongoing. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant N+GC is safe and effective in MIBC with significant pathologic downstaging rates and no added toxicities or delay to surgery. Clinical trial information: NCT03294304.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations138
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207