1L pembrolizumab (pembro) versus chemotherapy (chemo) for choice-of-carboplatin patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) in KEYNOTE-361.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
450 Background: 1L pembro is approved in advanced UC for cisplatin-ineligible pts with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥10 and any platinum-ineligible pts regardless of CPS in the United States based on single-arm trial data. In the phase III KEYNOTE-361 study, 1L pembro + chemo did not statistically significantly improve PFS or OS vs chemo for pts with advanced UC; formal testing of 1L pembro vs chemo was not performed. We present an exploratory analysis of outcomes with pembro vs chemo for choice-of-carboplatin (carbo) pts in KEYNOTE-361 (NCT02853305). Methods: At randomization, choice of platinum agent (cisplatin or carbo) plus gemcitabine for each pt was selected based on investigator’s assessment of cisplatin ineligibility. ORR/DOR per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS were determined for all pts selected for carbo (“choice-of-carbo”) and also choice-of-carbo pts with CPS ≥10. Risk difference assessment for select AEs for pembro vs chemo was conducted in choice-of-carbo pts who received ≥1 dose study treatment. Results: As of Apr 29, 2020, the median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff in the full study cohort was 31.7 (22.0-42.3) mo. At randomization, renal impairment was the most common reason for choice of carbo by investigators (36% of all pts). 170 choice-of-carbo pts were randomized to the pembro arm, and 196 choice-of-carbo pts to the chemo arm. Median OS in this subgroup was 14.6 mo with pembro vs 12.3 mo with chemo (HR 0.83 [95% CI 0.65-1.06]). 18-mo OS rate was 42% with pembro vs 40% with chemo. ORR to pembro vs chemo was 27.6% vs 41.8%. Median (range) DOR with pembro vs chemo was not reached (NR) (3.2+-36.1+ mo) vs 6.3 (1.8+-33.8+) mo. 84/170 (49%) and 89/196 (45%) choice-of-carbo pts in the pembro and chemo arms, respectively, had CPS ≥10. In this subgroup, median OS was 15.6 mo with pembro vs 13.5 mo with chemo (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.57-1.17]). 18-mo OS rate was 44% with pembro vs 43% with chemo. ORR to pembro vs chemo was 29.8% vs 46.1%. Median (range) DOR with pembro vs chemo was NR (4.2-36.1+ mo) vs 8.3 (2.1+-33.8+) mo. Among treated pts (N=166 for pembro, N=190 for chemo), 112 pts (68%) in the pembro arm and 163 pts (86%) in the chemo arm had grade 3-5 AEs of any cause. Pembro was associated with a higher risk of pruritus, while chemo was associated with a higher risk of decreased white blood cell, neutrophil, and platelet counts, nausea, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia. Conclusions: Due to the trial design, this subset was not statistically tested and is exploratory. Median OS and 18-mo OS rates did not appear markedly different in the two arms; some parameters such as DOR favored pembro, although longer follow-up is needed to determine median DOR for pembro. The PD-L1 CPS ≥10 did not clearly enrich for responders to pembro in choice-of-carbo pts. Pembro was associated with a lower rate of grade 3-5 AEs of any cause than chemo. Clinical trial information: NCT02853305.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".