MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pembrolizumab (P) or P + chemotherapy (C) versus EXTREME (E) as first-line (1L) therapy for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC): analysis of KEYNOTE-048 by disease state.

2020· article· en· W3028940670 on OpenAlexaff
Danny Rischin, Kevin J. Harrington, Richard Greil, Denis Soulières, Makoto Tahara, Gilberto de Castro, Amanda Psyrri, Neus Basté, Prakash Neupane, Åse Bratland, Thorsten Fuereder, Brett Hughes, Ricard Mesı́a, Nuttapong Ngamphaiboon, Tamara Rordorf, Wan Zamaniah Wan Ishak, Jianxin Lin, Burak Gümüşçü, Ramona F. Swaby, Barbara Burtness

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHazard ratioOncologyPopulationProportional hazards modelHead and neck cancerProgression-free survivalChemotherapyRadiation therapyGastroenterologyNuclear medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6530 Background: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-048 trial ( NCT02358031 ) in R/M HNSCC (N = 882), 1L P vs E showed superior OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥20 and CPS ≥1 populations, noninferior OS in the total population, no PFS benefit, and favorable safety; 1L P+C vs E showed superior OS in CPS ≥20, CPS ≥1, and total populations, no PFS benefit, and comparable safety. Results of P or P+C vs E in incurable recurrent only, metastatic only, and R/M subgroups are shown. The metastatic only and R/M subgroups were combined and classified as metastatic. Methods: Patients with incurable recurrent (local and/or regional node recurrent disease) or metastatic HNSCC were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to P, P+C, or E. OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios and 95% CIs were based on a Cox regression model with Efron’s method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status, HPV status, and PD-L1 status. Data cutoff: Feb 25, 2019. Results: In the incurable recurrent only subgroup (n = 252), median OS was 11.5 vs 12.1 mo (P vs E) and 13.0 vs 11.1 mo (P+C vs E). In the metastatic subgroup (n = 620), median OS was 11.4 vs 9.7 mo (P vs E) and 13.0 vs 10.1 mo (P+C vs E). Median follow-up, OS, and PFS are shown in Table. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) in the incurable recurrent only subgroup: 49.4% (P), 94.7% (P+C), and 97.8% (E); grade 3-5 TRAEs rates: 16.0%, 78.7%, and 73.3%, respectively. TRAE rates in the metastatic subgroup: 61.6% (P), 96.4% (P+C), and 96.4% (E); grade 3-5 TRAEs rates: 17.6%, 69.5%, and 67.0%, respectively. Conclusions: P and P+C vs E were efficacious in the metastatic subgroup; in the relatively smaller subgroup of patients with incurable recurrent only HNSCC, the effect was less pronounced. Consistent with the total study population and regardless of disease state, the safety profile was favorable with P vs E and comparable with P+C vs E. These data further support use of 1L P or P+C in patients with R/M HNSCC. Clinical trial information: NCT02358031 . [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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207