MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Post-hoc analysis of long-term outcomes in patients with CR, PR, or SD to pembrolizumab (pembro) or platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo) as 1L therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) in KEYNOTE-361.

2021· article· en· W3133939255 on OpenAlexaff
Yohann Loriot, Ajjai Alva, Tibor Csőszi, Mustafa Özgüroğlu, Nobuaki Matsubara, Lajos Géczi, Susanna Y. Cheng, Yves Fradet, Stéphane Oudard, Christof Vulsteke, Rafael Morales‐Barrera, Aude Fléchon, Şeyda Gündüz, Alejo Rodríguez‐Vida, Ronac Mamtani, Evan Y. Yu, Chih‐Chin Liu, Kentaro Imai, Blanca Homet Moreno, Thomas Powles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationUrothelial cancerRandomizationClinical trialInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

435 Background: The phase III KEYNOTE-361 study compared efficacy and safety of 1L pembro + chemo or pembro vs chemo in pts with advanced UC. The trial did not meet its primary endpoints of PFS or OS superiority for pembro + chemo vs chemo; formal testing for OS for pembro vs chemo was not performed. We present a post hoc landmark analysis to examine the durability of CR/PR/SD and long-term survival in pts with CR, PR, or SD to pembro vs chemo at week 9 in KEYNOTE-361 (NCT02853305). Methods: Landmark analyses of OS by CR/PR/SD at 9 weeks after randomization in the ITT population were performed. Pts were included if they had a best response of CR/PR/SD per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review at the landmark date of week 9 (first imaging assessment per study protocol). Duration of CR/PR/SD and OS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. No formal comparisons were performed. Results: 307 pts were randomized to receive pembro and 352 pts to receive chemo in the KEYNOTE-361 study. As of Apr 29, 2020, the median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 32.5 (22.0-42.4) mo for the pembo arm and 31.4 (22.1-41.6) mo for the chemo arm. In the landmark analysis, fewer pts had CR/PR/SD at week 9 with pembro (n=137 [45%]) than with chemo (n=253 [72%]). Median (range) duration of response for pembro vs chemo was 18.7 (4.4+-35.4+) vs 12.3 (0.0+-29.7+) mo for pts with CR, and 35.0 (1.1-36.1+) vs 6.1 (0.0+-36.3+) mo for pts with PR. Median (range) duration of SD was 4.8 mo (0.0-38.2+) with pembro and 4.6 mo (0.0-16.1+) with chemo. Median OS (95% CI) for pembro vs chemo was not reached (NR) (25.5-NR) vs NR (19.1-NR) for pts with CR; NR (NR-NR) vs 14.8 mo (12.1-21.0) for pts with PR; and 18.5 mo (13.8-28.8) vs 11.1 mo (8.1-14.6) for pts with SD, respectively. Long-term OS rates were higher with pembro vs chemo across all groups (CR/PR/SD) at week 9 (Table). Conclusions: In this post hoc landmark analysis, chemo was associated with more initial responses than pembro, whereas pembro was associated with longer median duration of CR and PR, and generally longer median OS than chemo. Among pts who achieved CR/PR/SD at week 9, the relative OS benefit for pembro vs chemo increased over time. Clinical trial information: NCT02853305. [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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→