MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

An open-label, multicenter, phase IIIb study of patients with urinary tract carcinoma (UTC) (STRONG): Final analysis for fixed-dose durvalumab monotherapy (module A).

2021· article· en· W3134647918 on OpenAlexaff
Guru Sonpavde, Aurélien Marabelle, Yohann Loriot, Cora N. Sternberg, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Aude Fléchon, Guilhem Roubaud, Damien Pouessel, Vittorina Zagonel, Fabio Calabrò, Giuseppe Luigi Banna, Sang Joon Shin, Francisco Emilio Vera Badillo, Thomas Powles, Eva Hellmis, Paulo Miranda, Ana Rita Lima, W. Sawyer, Sebastién J. Hotte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDurvalumabClinical endpointDiscontinuationInternal medicineAdverse effectUrologyCisplatinTolerabilityResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsOncologyChemotherapyPhases of clinical researchGastroenterologySurgeryCancerClinical trialImmunotherapyPembrolizumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

429 Background: Patients (pts) with advanced UTC who fail first-line therapy have poor prognoses. Durvalumab (D; anti-PD-L1) 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks is approved for treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy (CT). Further understanding of long-term safety and efficacy of D in platinum and non-platinum pretreated pts, using a fixed dose every 4 weeks (Q4W), is of value. Methods: Module A of the phase IIIb STRONG study (NCT03084471) investigated the safety of fixed-dose D (1500 mg, Q4W) in pts with urothelial and nonurothelial UTC who progressed on or after platinum/non-platinum CT. The primary endpoint was the number of pts with adverse events of special interest (AESIs) – events with an inflammatory or immune-mediated mechanism that may require interventions (eg, steroids/immunosuppressants), including immune-mediated adverse events (imAE). AEs with onset date on or after the date of first dose and up to 90 days after study discontinuation were included. Secondary endpoints included serious AEs and overall survival (OS). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) (investigator assessed per RECIST 1.1). Results: A total of 867 pts received D monotherapy. Median age was 68.1 yr and 80.0% were male; 87.1% had an ECOG PS 0-1 and 12.7% had ECOG PS 2. Most (96.3%) had urothelial UTC, including urothelial variants. Tumor PD-L1 expression was high (≥25%) in 239/577 (41.4%) pts with available data. Median treatment and follow-up duration were 12.1 wk (range 1-128) and 13.8 mo (range 0.0-28.8), respectively. Safety data are reported in the table. Deaths related to study treatment occurred in 9 pts (1.0%). At data cutoff (March 31, 2020), 30.8% of pts were in survival follow-up. Median OS was 7.0 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.2); OS rate at 1 and 2 yr was 35.8% (95% CI: 32.5-39.2) and 20.2% (95% CI: 16.5-24.1), respectively. ORR was 17.7% with complete responses in 5.1% of pts. DCR at 6 mo was 33.0%. Median OS of subgroups: PD-L1 high or low: 9.3 mo (95% CI: 6.7-12.7) and 6.5 mo (95% CI: 5.8-8.1); ECOG PS 0-1 or 2: 8.4 mo (95% CI: 7.2–9.8) and 3 mo (95% CI: 2.0-4.1); urothelial and nonurothelial UTC: 7.0 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.2) and 7.0 mo (95% CI: 2.7-10.2), respectively. Conclusions: Fixed-dose D monotherapy Q4W is convenient with an acceptable safety profile in previously treated pts for UTC. Long-term safety and efficacy data reported are consistent with published studies of D and other IO agents in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT03084471 . [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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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