A randomized phase II study of cabozantinib and nivolumab versus nivolumab in recurrent endometrial cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6010 Background: The efficacy of treatment for recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) remains limited. Vascular endothelial growth factor and inflammatory chemokines are proangiogenic factors and immune modulators involved in immune suppression. Reprogramming the tumor microenvironment by combining antiangiogenic and immunotherapy (IO) could enhance antitumor responses. Methods: A 2:1 randomized phase 2 trial compared the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab (Arm A) versus nivolumab (Arm B) in recurrent EC. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) assessed by RECIST 1.1 (NCT03367741). Women with recurrent measurable EC were eligible. There were no limits on prior therapy, but at least one prior platinum-based chemotherapy was required. Patients (pts) were stratified according to MSI status and assessed by CT every 8 weeks. Cabozantinib was given at 40 mg daily (Arm A) and nivolumab at 240 mg, on D1 and D15 of a 28-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks (Arms A & B). Pts with carcinosarcoma or prior IO were enrolled in an exploratory cohort and received combination treatment (Arm C). A baseline biopsy was required for all pts. CyTOF analysis was performed on fresh biopsies. Results: 76 evaluable pts were enrolled (Arm A: 36, Arm B: 18, Arm C: 9 carcinosarcoma, and 20 post IO including 7 pts crossed over from Arm B). 55% of pts had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy. Two pts were MSI high in Arm A and none in Arm B. The Kaplan-Meier estimated median PFS was 5.3 (95% CI: 3.5-9.5) months in Arm A and 1.9 (95% CI: 1.6-3.8) months in Arm B, with a log-rank p = 0.07, which met the significance level of 0.1 used for sample size calculation. Objective response rate (ORR) was 25% for Arm A and 16.7% for Arm B; stable disease (SD) was seen in 44.4% vs 11.1%, respectively. Clinical benefit (ORR+SD) was significantly higher in arm A vs B (p < 0.001). In Arm C-carcinosarcoma, one patient had a partial response (11.9 months duration) and four SD. In Arm C-prior IO, six pts responded and eight had SD. The most common related AEs in Arm A were diarrhea (47.2%), elevated liver enzymes (44.4%), fatigue (38.9%), anorexia, hypertension, and nausea (30.6%), mainly grade 1/2. Preliminary CyTOF analysis across treatment arms identified multiple immune subsets for further interrogation including activated CD8+ and CD4+ T cells. Conclusions: Cabozantinib plus nivolumab demonstrates improved PFS compared to nivolumab in heavily pre-treated women with recurrent EC. In-depth CyTOF analysis of the tumor microenvironment to identify predictive immune biomarkers of response is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03367741.
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) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".