Abstract CT221: Nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) as first-line (1L) treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases: Results from CheckMate 227
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated activity in brain lesions in several tumor types, including NSCLC. CheckMate 227 Part 1 (NCT02477826) met its two independent co-primary endpoints, including improved overall survival (OS) for NIVO + IPI vs histology-based chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 1%. Benefit was also observed in pts with PD-L1 < 1%. Eligible pts included those with treated, asymptomatic brain metastases (mets). Here we present a post-hoc analysis of efficacy and safety in pts with and without baseline (BL) brain mets. Methods: Eligible pts were chemo-naive, with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and ECOG PS 0–1. Pts with treated brain mets who were asymptomatic for ≥ 2 wks prior to randomization were eligible; corticosteroids equivalent to ≤ 10 mg of prednisone daily were permitted if stable or decreasing for ≥ 2 wks prior to randomization. Pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (n = 1189) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W, NIVO 240 mg Q2W, or chemo; pts with PD-L1 < 1% (n = 550) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W, NIVO 360 mg Q3W + chemo, or chemo. Pts were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or ≤ 2 y of immunotherapy. Results: BL characteristics were generally similar between pts with and without BL brain mets, except that a greater proportion of pts with BL brain mets were < 65 years of age and had non-squamous histology. Efficacy data are shown in the Table. Any-grade nervous system adverse events were reported in 46% of pts with BL brain mets treated with NIVO + IPI and 42% of those treated with chemo, most were grade 1–2. Conclusion: In this post-hoc analysis of pts with advanced NSCLC, NIVO + IPI appeared to provide similar benefit in pts with and without BL brain mets. No new safety signals were identified. Table.Efficacy by baseline brain metastases in CheckMate 227 Part 1Patients with baseline brain metastasesPatients without baseline brain metastasesNIVO + IPI (n = 69)Chemo (n = 66)NIVO + IPI (n = 514)Chemo (n = 517)OS, median (95% CI), mo18.8 (9.2-29.4)13.7 (10.5-16.2)17.1 (15.3-19.9)13.9 (11.8-15.3)HR (95% CI)0.57 (0.38-0.85)0.76 (0.66-0.88)1-y rates, %575962542-y rates, %44264030PFS,a median (95% CI), mo5.4 (3.1-8.6)5.8 (4.3-8.0)4.9 (4.1-5.7)5.4 (4.5-5.6)HR (95% CI)0.79 (0.52-1.19)0.81 (0.70-0.93)1-y rates, %382132172-y rates, %227206ORR,a %33263328DOR,a median (95% CI), mo24.9 (11.3-NR)8.4 (4.2-13.9)19.6 (15.5-28.6)5.8 (4.8-6.9)1-y rates, %724065262-y rates, %5384610Minimum follow-up was 29.3 mo.aPer BICR. BICR, blinded independent central review; CI, confidence interval; chemo, chemotherapy; DOR, duration of response; HR, hazard ratio; IPI, ipilimumab; mo, month; NIVO, nivolumab; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; y, year. Citation Format: Hossein Borghaei, Adam Pluzanski, Reyes Bernabe Caro, Mariano Provencio, Sjaak Burgers, Enric Carcereny, Keunchil Park, Aurelia Alexandru, Lorena Lupinacci, Randeep Sangha, Judith Raimbourg, Alain Vergnenegre, Konstantinos Syrigos, Fabrice Barlesi, Norbert Frickhofen, Ang Li, Ravi Kasinathan, Luis Paz-Ares. Nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) as first-line (1L) treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases: Results from CheckMate 227 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT221.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".