Time to central nervous system (CNS) metastases (mets) with atezolizumab (A) or placebo (P) combined with cobimetinib (C) + vemurafenib (V) in the phase III IMspire150 study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10023 Background: The phase 3 IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated improved progression-free survival with first-line combination treatment with A+C+V vs P+C+V in patients (pts) with previously untreated BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma. Here we report incidence and time to development of CNS mets with A+C+V vs P+C+V in the IMspire150 study. Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to receive A+C+V or P+C+V. A or P were given on day 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle after an initial cycle of C+V. Incidence and time to development of CNS mets were evaluated in pts with no history of CNS mets at baseline confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography (MRI/CT). On study MRI/CT assessments were performed as clinically indicated. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and competing risks analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using landmark analysis at time of initiation of A or P. Results: 514 pts were randomized to receive A+C+V (n = 256) or P+C+V (n = 258); 244 and 247 pts, respectively, had no history of CNS mets at baseline. After a median follow-up of 18.9 months, CNS mets had developed in 52/244 pts (21%) in the A+C+V arm and 62/247 pts (25%) in the P+C+V arm. In both arms, pts with CNS mets were more likely to have other known unfavorable prognostic factors: elevated LDH, presence of liver mets, and/or higher tumor burden. Cumulative incidence of CNS mets as first site of progressive disease with A+C+V vs P+C+V was 8% vs 9%, 16% vs 19%, 20% vs 24%, and 23% vs 26% at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; 95% CI 0.60-1.26). Estimated CNS mets-free survival rates for A+C+V vs P+C+V were 91% vs 90%, 81% vs 75%, 74% vs 66%, and 69% vs 62% at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively, with a trend for improved CNS mets-free survival with A+C+V (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.55-1.14). Results of landmark analyses for CNS mets-free survival and cumulative incidence of CNS mets were similar to those in the overall analysis. Conclusions: The addition of anti–programmed death-ligand 1 to C+V is associated with numerically lower rates of interval development of CNS mets, consistent with the overall benefit observed for A+C+V in the study. This finding requires further follow-up to fully assess the magnitude of benefit of A+C+V on CNS mets-free survival. Clinical trial information: NCT02908672.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".