MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase III randomized study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) alone or in combination with nivolumab (NIVO) ± linrodostat mesylate, followed by adjuvant postsurgical NIVO ± linrodostat, in cisplatin-eligible muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

2020· article· en· W3029622210 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guru Sonpavde, Andrea Necchi, Shilpa Gupta, Gary D. Steinberg, Juergen E. Gschwend, Michiel Simon Van Der Heijden, Audrey Richiero, Alexandre Lambert, Bradley Raybold, Srikanth Gajavelli, Dimitrios Zardavas, Matt D. Galsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb Canada
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerCystectomyCisplatinInternal medicineOncologyChemotherapyNivolumabCarboplatinCancerUrologyImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS5091 Background: Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies have revolutionized the treatment (tx) of pts with advanced bladder cancer (advBC). For pts with cisplatin-eligible, muscle invasive BC (MIBC), the recommended tx is cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to radical cystectomy (RC). However, since only ≈ 30% of pts achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR) translating to improved long-term outcomes with approved regimens, new therapies are needed. PD-L1 expression is associated with aggressive BC and has been shown to increase in BC after NAC, supporting the therapeutic pursuit of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis. Additionally, expression of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) is higher in BC than in normal bladder tissue and is associated with advanced disease and poor clinical outcome. Linrodostat mesylate, a selective, potent, once-daily oral IDO1 inhibitor that works to reduce kynurenine production, has demonstrated clinical activity in combination with NIVO (anti–PD-1) in pts with IO tx–naive advBC who had ≥ 1 prior line of therapy (ORR, 37%). Taken together, these data provide a rationale for investigating NAC + NIVO + linrodostat in MIBC. Here we describe a randomized, partially blinded, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of NAC ± NIVO ± linrodostat followed by RC and continued IO tx in pts with MIBC (NCT03661320). Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 years with previously untreated MIBC (clinical stage T2-T4a, N0, M0), creatinine clearance ≥ 50 mL/min, and predominant UC histology who are eligible for cisplatin-based NAC and RC will be enrolled. Pts with evidence of positive lymph node; metastatic BC; or prior systemic therapy, radiotherapy, or surgery for BC other than TURBT are not eligible. Pts will be randomized to receive NAC (gemcitabine/cisplatin; arm A), NAC + NIVO + oral placebo (arm B), or NAC + NIVO + linrodostat (arm C) followed by RC (all arms); arms B and C will receive continued IO tx. Primary endpoints include pCR after neoadjuvant tx and event-free survival (arms C vs A; arms B vs A). Secondary endpoints are overall survival and safety. This global study in 28 countries began accrual in Nov 2018 and has a target enrollment of 1200 pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03661320 .

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→