MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025475588 · doi:10.1136/lba2019.16

P863 KEYNOTE-022 parts 4 and 5: pembrolizumab plus trametinib for patients with solid tumors or BRAF wild-type melanoma

2020· article· en· W3025475588 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Maio, Matteo S. Carlino, Anthony M. Joshua, Elaine McWhirter, Antoni Ribas, Paolo A. Ascierto, Wilson H. Miller, Marcus O. Butler, Pier Francesco Ferrucci, Robert Zielinski, Michele Del Vecchio, Eduard Gasal, Razi Ghori, Scott J. Diede, Elizabeth Croydon, Omid Hamid

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersPfizer
KeywordsTrametinibPembrolizumabDabrafenibMedicineTolerabilityMelanomaInternal medicineOncologyAdverse effectVemurafenibCancer researchImmunotherapyMAPK/ERK pathwayBiologyCancerMetastatic melanomaKinase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Pembrolizumab+dabrafenib+trametinib demonstrated promising antitumor activity and acceptable tolerability in BRAF-mutant melanoma in phase 1/2 KEYNOTE-022 parts 1 and 2 (NCT02130466). Pembrolizumab+dabrafenib+trametinib numerically prolonged PFS and DOR versus placebo+dabrafenib+trametinib but had a higher grade 3-5 TRAE rate in part 3. KEYNOTE-022 parts 4 and 5 evaluated pembrolizumab+trametinib. <h3>Methods</h3> In part 4 (open-label, 3+3 dose-finding) patients with advanced solid tumors (irrespective of BRAF status) or unresectable/metastatic BRAF wild-type melanoma received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W with trametinib as concurrent (2 or 4 weeks of trametinib run-in [1.5 or 2 mg QD], then pembrolizumab+trametinib [1.5 or 2 mg QD]) or intermittent dosing (2 weeks of trametinib run-in [1.5 or 2 mg QD], then pembrolizumab+trametinib [1.5 or 2 mg QD; 1 week off/2 weeks on]). Interim MTDs identified in part 4 were confirmed in part 5 using a modified toxicity probability interval design. The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, and ORR by investigator assessment per RECIST v1.1 of the maximum administered or tolerated dose (MAD/MTD) of pembrolizumab+trametinib. Safety was analyzed for all patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug; patients treated during the trametinib run-in who discontinued study before receiving pembrolizumab were included; patients who did not complete trametinib run-in or receive ≥66% of planned doses during the 6-week dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluable period were not included for DLT evaluation. AEs were graded per NCI CTCAE v4. <h3>Results</h3> Of 42 enrolled patients, most were female (61.9%); median age was 55.0 years; 57.1% had received ≥2 prior lines of therapy. At database cutoff (June 26, 2019), median follow-up was 9.0 months (range, 1.4-25.6 months). Of 38 DLT-evaluable patients, 10 had DLTs (table 1). Dosing regimens were selected for confirmation in part 5 based on safety data. Any-grade TRAEs occurred in 39 (92.9%) patients; grade 3-4 TRAEs occurred in 19 (45.2%), none were grade 5. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 8 (19.0%) patients. Immune-mediated AEs occurred in 12 (28.6%) patients, most commonly severe skin reactions (n=6; 14.3%), pneumonitis (n=3; 7.1%), hypothyroidism (n=2; 4.8%). The MTD of concurrent pembrolizumab+trametinib was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 1.5 mg with 2 weeks of trametinib run-in (ORR, 0/16; 0%) and the MTD of intermittent pembrolizumab+trametinib was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 2 mg with 2 weeks of run-in (ORR, 4/15; 26.7%). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Both concurrent or intermittent pembrolizumab+trametinib dosing were feasible and the combination showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors or advanced BRAF wild-type melanoma.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysFrench-language works237,207