MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

KEYNOTE-048: Progression after the next line of therapy following pembrolizumab (P) or P plus chemotherapy (P+C) vs EXTREME (E) as first-line (1L) therapy for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

2020· article· en· W3031475478 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin J. Harrington, Danny Rischin, 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, Yayan Zhang, Burak Gümüşçü, Ramona F. Swaby, Barbara Burtness

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabInternal medicineOncologyPopulationProportional hazards modelProgression-free survivalChemotherapyCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6505 Background: 1L P vs E improved OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥20 and CPS ≥1 populations, and led to noninferior OS in the total population, with favorable safety; 1L P+C vs E had superior OS in CPS ≥20, CPS ≥1, and total populations with comparable safety in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-048 study (NCT02358031) in patients with R/M HNSCC. Neither P vs E nor P+C vs E improved PFS in the PD-L1 CPS ≥20, CPS ≥1, or total populations. Here, we present the progression after the next line of therapy (PFS2) to assess the effect of 1L P or P+C and subsequent anticancer therapy on patient outcomes. Methods: Patients with locally incurable R/M HNSCC and no prior systemic therapy in the R/M setting were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to P, P+C, or E. PFS2 was defined as time from randomization to objective tumor progression on next-line therapy or death from any cause. PFS2 was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method as an exploratory outcome confined to those receiving subsequent therapy after 1L P. HR 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 [PS], HPV status, and PD-L1 for CPS ≥1 and total populations; by ECOG PS and HPV status for CPS ≥20 population). Data cutoff: Feb 25, 2019. Results: Of 882 (301 [P]; 281 [P+C]; 300 [E]) treated patients,422 (P: 148 [49.2%]; P+C: 115 [40.9%]; E: 159 [53.0%]) received subsequent anticancer therapy after 1L P, most commonly C (P: 135 [44.9%]; P+C: 88 [31.3%]; E: 102 [34.0%]); EGFR inhibitor (P: 59 [19.6%]; P+C: 37 [13.2%]; E: 19 [6.3%]); and immune checkpoint inhibitor (P: 6 [2.0%]; P+C: 12 [4.3%]; E: 50 [16.7%]); patients may have received more than one type of subsequent therapy. Median PFS2 is reported in Table. Conclusions: In patients with R/M HNSCC, longer median PFS2 was observed in the CPS ≥20 and CPS ≥1 populations for P vs E, and in the CPS ≥20, CPS ≥1, and total populations for 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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207