MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter, global study of first-line durvalumab plus standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy and durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC chemotherapy versus SoC chemotherapy alone in unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (NILE).

2021· article· en· W3134095416 on OpenAlexaff
Matt D. Galsky, Andrea Necchi, Srikala S. Sridhar, Osamu Ogawa, Natasha Angra, Stephan Hois, Feng Xiao, Erik T. Goluboff, Joaquim Bellmunt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurvalumabTremelimumabMedicineAtezolizumabGemcitabineOncologyInternal medicineCarboplatinChemotherapyHazard ratioPopulationClinical endpointPembrolizumabCancerCisplatinImmunotherapyIpilimumabClinical trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS504 Background: Despite high response rates with first-Line (1L), standard, platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) (gemcitabine + cisplatin or gemcitabine + carboplatin) for patients (pts) with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), prognosis remains poor. Studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors + CT in 1L mUC have demonstrated mixed results. In IMvigor130, an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab + CT vs placebo + CT reached statistical significance, although overall survival (OS) had not reached statistical significance at the interim analysis. A subgroup analysis suggested a possible larger effect size for PFS and OS for pts with high PD-L1 expression. In KEYNOTE-361, no improvement in either PFS or OS was observed with pembrolizumab + CT vs CT alone. The combination of durvalumab (anti–PD-L1 antibody) and tremelimumab (anti–CTLA-4 antibody) has shown activity in previously treated mUC. In the DANUBE trial of 1L mUC, the co-primary endpoints were OS compared between durvalumab and CT in pts whose tumor cells and/or tumor-infiltrating immune cells express high levels of PD-L1 (≥25%) and between durvalumab + tremelimumab and CT regardless of PD-L1 expression. While neither co-primary endpoint was met, durvalumab + tremelimumab showed evidence of activity, particularly in the PD-L1–high population (hazard ratio: 0.74 [95% CI 0.59–0.93]). Collectively, these results led to an update to the NILE protocol, focusing on pts with PD-L1–high expression. Methods: NILE (NCT03682068) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III global trial that will randomize ~1215 previously untreated pts with histologically or cytologically documented, unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. Eligible pts aged ≥18 years will be randomized 1:1:1 to durvalumab + CT (Arm 1), durvalumab + tremelimumab + CT (Arm 2), or CT (Arm 3). A tumor tissue sample for biomarker analysis is mandatory as PD-L1 status is a stratification factor. The original co-primary endpoints were PFS and OS for durvalumab + CT vs CT in the intention-to-treat population. However, based on the DANUBE trial results, the primary endpoint was revised to a co-primary endpoint OS in pts with high PD-L1 expression for Arm 1 vs Arm 3 and Arm 2 vs Arm 3. Secondary endpoints will include OS, OS rate at 24 months, PFS, objective response rate, proportion of pts alive and progression free at 12 months, duration of response, disease control rate, time from randomization to second progression, health-related quality of life, and safety. Pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and biomarkers are exploratory endpoints. The study opened for enrollment in September 2018. Clinical trial information: NCT03682068.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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