KEYNOTE-204: Randomized, open-label, phase III study of pembrolizumab (pembro) versus brentuximab vedotin (BV) in relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8005 Background: PD-1 blockade via pembro monotherapy showed antitumor activity in R/R cHL. KEYNOTE-204 (NCT02684292) was a randomized, international, open-label, phase III study of pembro vs BV in R/R cHL. Methods: Patients (pts) were aged ≥18 y, were post−autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) or ineligible for auto-SCT, and had measurable disease and ECOG PS 0 or 1. BV-naive and BV-exposed pts were eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg IV Q3W or BV 1.8 mg/kg IV Q3W and stratified by prior auto-SCT (yes vs no) and status after 1L therapy (primary refractory vs relapsed <12 mo vs relapsed ≥12 mo after end of 1L therapy). Primary end points: PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) per International Working Group (IWG) criteria including clinical and imaging data after auto-SCT or allogeneic SCT (allo-SCT) and OS. Key secondary end points: PFS excluding clinical and imaging data after auto-SCT or allo-SCT (PFS-secondary), and ORR by BICR per IWG, PFS by investigator review per IWG, and safety. Exploratory end point: DOR by BICR per IWG. Results: 304 pts were randomized and 300 were treated (148, pembro; 152, BV); 256 discontinued. Median (range) follow-up: 24.7 (0.6-42.3) mo. 15 pts were BV exposed. Median (range) time on treatment was 305.0 (1-814) and 146.5 (1-794) days with pembro and BV, respectively. Statistically significant improvement was observed with pembro vs BV for primary PFS analysis (HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.48-0.88; P =0.00271]; median 13.2 vs 8.3 mo); 12-mo PFS rates were 53.9% vs 35.6%, respectively. Benefit was observed in all subgroups tested, including pts with no auto-SCT (HR=0.61), primary refractory disease (HR=0.52), prior BV (HR=0.34) and BV naive (HR=0.67). Significant improvement in PFS-secondary was observed with pembro vs BV (HR 0.62 [95% CI 0.46-0.85]; median 12.6 vs 8.2 mo). Per investigator assessment, PFS was longer with pembro vs BV (HR 0.49 [95% CI 0.36-0.67]; median 19.2 vs 8.2 mo). ORR was 65.6% for pembro and 54.2% for BV; CR rates were 24.5% and 24.2%, respectively. Median (range) DOR was 20.7 mo (0.0+ to 33.2+) for pembro and 13.8 mo (0.0+ to 33.9+) for BV. Grade 3-5 TRAEs: 19.6% of pts with pembro and 25.0% with BV. One death due to TRAE occurred with pembro (pneumonia). Conclusions: In pts with R/R cHL, pembro was superior to BV and demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS across all subgroups, with safety consistent with previous reports. Pembro monotherapy should be standard of care for this pt population with R/R/cHL. Clinical trial information: NCT02684292 .
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
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".