MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Real-world utilization and safety of ipilimumab plus nivolumab (I+N) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients: Results from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis).

2020· article· en· W3007983591 on OpenAlexaffabout
Myuran Thana, Naveen S. Basappa, Sunita Ghosh, Christian Kollmannsberger, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Jeffrey Graham, Denis Soulières, Aaron R. Hansen, Aly‐Khan A. Lalani, Vincent Castonguay, M. Neil Reaume, Georg A. Bjarnason, Rodney H. Breau, Frédéric Pouliot, Anil Kapoor, Lori Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaSunnybrook HospitalUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreUniversity of ManitobaBC Cancer AgencyHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationIpilimumabTolerabilityNivolumabInternal medicineRenal cell carcinomaCohortHazard ratioAdverse effectCancerSurgeryOncologyImmunotherapyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

633 Background: I+N is now standard of care for first line treatment of intermediate/poor risk mRCC patients (pts). Real world data is vital to understand drug usage, toxicity and outcomes in non-trial pts. This project describes the amount and tolerability of treatment delivered including discontinuation rates, reasons for discontinuation and outcomes from the CKCis database. Methods: Pts in CKCis, a prospective Canadian database from 15 academic centers, who received first line I+N were included. The number of doses of I+N, number of pts who received single-agent nivolumab (N) and duration of single agent N were determined. Reasons for treatment discontinuation, including the rate, type, and grade of toxicities were identified. Efficacy outcomes included time to failure (TTF – time to progression, death, or second line therapy), overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Results: The cohort consists of 182 pts. Median age was 63 yrs, 71% had clear cell histology, 11% were on a clinical trial, the IMDC risk distribution was 5% good, 63% intermediate, 32% poor. Median follow up was 8.8 m. All 4 I+N doses were received by 30% of pts of which 78% went on to receive single-agent N. Less than 4 doses of I+N were received by 70% of pts of which 28% went on to receive single-agent N. The median time on single agent N was 5.7 m. In the entire cohort, 21% of patients discontinued therapy due to toxicity. The most common toxicity events were colitis (56% of all events), pneumonitis (19%), and hepatitis (8%). There were no toxicity-related deaths. Median OS has not been reached (22 events to date). Median TTF was 12.4 m. ORR was 32% (5% complete responses). 26% of pts received second line treatment, the most common being sunitinib in 79%. Conclusions: In this real world cohort, the majority of mRCC pts did not receive all 4 doses of I+N, contrasting with clinical trial reporting, yet many of these pts went on to receive single agent N. Discontinuation rates due to toxicity were similar to those reported in CheckMate 214. Further follow up is ongoing and efficacy outcomes analyzed on the basis of treatment quantity/duration will be presented.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→