MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract GS3-01: Additional efficacy endpoints from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

2021· article· en· W3130576199 on OpenAlexaff
Hope S. Rugo, Peter Schmid, David W. Cescon, Zbigniew Nowecki, Seock‐Ah Im, Mastura Md Yusof, Carlos Gallardo, Oleg Lipatov, Carlos H. Barrios, José Manuel Pérez-García, Hiroji Iwata, Norikazu Masuda, Marco Torregroza Otero, Erhan Gökmen, Sherene Loi, Zifang Guo, Jing Zhao, Vassiliki Karantza, Gursel Aktan, Javier Cortés

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineTaxaneCarboplatinPembrolizumabChemotherapyInternal medicineOncologyInterim analysisClinical endpointChemotherapy regimenPaclitaxelPremedicationProgression-free survivalTriple-negative breast cancerMetastatic breast cancerPhases of clinical researchClinical trialBreast cancerCancerSurgeryCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Pembrolizumab (pembro) monotherapy showed durable antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients (pts) with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in the KEYNOTE-012, -086, and -119 studies. In a prespecified interim analysis of KEYNOTE-355 (NCT02819518), pembro combined with chemotherapy (chemo) showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus chemo alone in pts with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1 CPS ≥10 (HR for progression or death, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.49-0.86; one-sided P=0.0012 [prespecified statistical criterion was alpha=0.00411 at this interim analysis]). Additionally, pembro + chemo was generally well tolerated, with no new safety signals. Here, we examine PFS outcomes for each chemo partner and present key secondary endpoints from KEYNOTE-355. Methods: 847 pts with measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS 0-1, and ≥6 mo DFI were randomized 2:1 to pembro + chemo (nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days; paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days; or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or pbo + chemo for up to 35 administrations of pembro/pbo or until progression/intolerable toxicity. Steroid premedication for paclitaxel was given according to local guidelines and practices, and was not restricted by the protocol. Crossover between arms was not allowed. Pts were stratified by chemo type (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs <1), and prior (neo)adjuvant treatment with same-class chemo (yes vs no). Dual primary endpoints are PFS (RECIST v1.1, blinded independent central review) and OS in pts with PD-L1 positive tumors (CPS ≥10 and ≥1) and in all pts. Secondary endpoints include ORR, DCR (CR + PR + SD ≥24 weeks), and DOR. The PFS treatment effect was assessed in subgroups descriptively using HRs and 95% CIs; although subgroup analysis by on-study chemo were pre-specified, the trial was not powered to compare efficacy among treatment groups by different chemo regimens. Results: As of Dec 11 2019, median follow-up was 25.9 mo for pembro + chemo (n=566) and 26.3 mo for pbo + chemo (n=281). The HR for PFS favored pembro regardless of choice of chemo or CPS population (Table). Results for the key secondary endpoints of ORR, DCR, and DOR favored pembro + chemo, with the treatment effect increasing as CPS increased (Table). Conclusion: In subgroup analysis, PFS with pembro + chemo compared to pbo + chemo in pts with metastatic TNBC was improved regardless of chemo partner. A trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment with pembro + chemo was observed for ORR, DCR and DOR endpoints. These data further support the potential of pembro + chemo as a first-line treatment option for metastatic TNBC. CPS ≥ 10CPS ≥ 1All ptsPembro + ChemoPbo + ChemoPembro + ChemoPbo + ChemoPembro + Chemo|Pbo + ChemoN = 220N = 103N = 425N = 211N = 566N = 281PFS, mo median (95% CI)9.7 (7.6 - 11.3)5.6 (5.3 - 7.5)7.6 (6.6 - 8.0)5.6 (5.4 - 7.4)7.5 (6.3 - 7.7)5.6 (5.4 - 7.3)HR (95% CI)0.65 (0.49 - 0.86)0.74 (0.61 - 0.90)0.82 (0.69 - 0.97)PFS by on-study chemo, (n [%)) mo median(95% CI)Nab-Paclitaxel(63 [28.6%]) 9.9(36 [35.0%]) 5.5(130 [30.6%]) 6.3(74 [35.1%)) 5.3(173 [30.6%]) 7.5(95 [33.8%]) 5.4HR (95% CI)0.57 (0.34 - 0.95)0.66 (0.26 - 0.82)0.69 (0.51 - 0.93)Paclitaxel(33 [15.0%]) 9.6(11 [10.7%]) 3.6(62 [14.6%]) 9.4(22 [10.4%]) 3.8(82 [14.5%]) 8.0(32 [11.4%]) 3.8HR (95% CI)0.33 (0.14 - 0.76)0.46 (0.26 - 0.82)0.57 (0.35 - 0.93)Gemcitabine-Carboplatin(124 [56.4%]) 8.0(56 [54.4%]) 7.2(233 [54.8%]) 7.5(115 [54.5%]) 7.5(311 [54.9%]) 7.4(154 [54.8%]) 7.4HR (95% CI)0.77 (0.53 - 1.11)0.86 (0.66 - 1.11)0.93 (0.74 - 1.16)ORR, % (95% CI)53.2 (46.4 - 59.9)39.8 (30.3 - 49.9)45.2 (40.4 - 50.0)37.9 (31.3 - 44.8)41.0 (36.9 - 45.2)35.9 (30.3 - 41.9)DCR, % (95% CI)65.0 (58.3 - 71.3)54.4 (44.3 - 64.2)58.6 (53.7 - 63.3)53.6 (46.6 - 60.4)56.0 (51.8 - 60.1)51.6 (45.6 - 57.6)DOR, mo, median (range)19.3 (1.6+ - 29.8)7.3 (1.5 - 32.5+)10.1 (1.0+ - 29.8)6.5 (1.5 - 32.5+)10.1 (1.0+ - 29.8)6.4 ( 1.5 - 32.5+)"+" indicates there is no progressive disease by the time of last disease assessment. Citation Format: Hope S. Rugo, Peter Schmid, David W. Cescon, Zbigniew Nowecki, Seock-Ah Im, Mastura Md Yusof, Carlos Gallardo, Oleg Lipatov, Carlos Henrique Barrios, Jose Perez-Garcia, Hiroji Iwata, Norikazu Masuda, Marco Torregroza Otero, Erhan Gokmen, Sherene Loi, Zifang Guo, Jing Zhao, Vassiliki Karantza, Gursel Aktan, Javier Cortes. Additional efficacy endpoints from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-01.

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)0.004
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 score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207