MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

KEYNOTE-629: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with locally advanced (LA) or recurrent or metastatic (R/M) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC).

2021· article· en· W3167507808 on OpenAlexaff
Åse Bratland, Eva Muñoz‐Couselo, Laurent Mortier, Osama Roshdy, René González, Jacob Schachter, Ana Arance, Florent Grange, Nicolás Meyer, Abhishek Joshi, Salem Billan, Brett Hughes, Jean‐Jacques Grob, Karthik Ramakrishnan, Éric Zhang, Burak Gümüşçü, Ramona F. Swaby, Ralf Gutzmer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationQuality of life (healthcare)CohortInterimInterim analysisPembrolizumabPopulationClinical endpointCancerClinical trialInternal medicineGerontologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9546 Background: KEYNOTE-629 is a single-arm phase 2 study of pembro for cSCC. At second interim analysis (IA), pembro had robust and durable antitumor activity and manageable safety in LA and R/M cohorts. At first IA, pembro maintained HRQoL in the R/M cohort; LA was not analyzed because of ongoing accrual. HRQoL of pts with LA or R/M cSCC at second IA (database cutoff July 29, 2020; additional 15-mo follow-up since IA1 for the R/M cohort) is shown. Methods: Pts with LA or R/M cSCC received pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for ≤35 cycles. HRQoL was a prespecified exploratory end point assessed using EORTC QLQ-30 and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L instruments administered at baseline, wk 3, and wk 6; then Q6W through y 1; then Q9W until treatment end/discontinuation; and at the 30-day safety follow-up. HRQoL was analyzed in pts who received ≥1 pembro dose and completed baseline and ≥1 postbaseline HRQoL assessments. Mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL), physical functioning (PF), and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS) scores were evaluated at wk 12 to ensure adequate completion rate and through last pt visit at wk 75 for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and PF scores. HRQoL was categorized as improved or deteriorated based on ≥10-point change in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores (considered clinically meaningful). Results: The HRQoL analysis population for LA had 47 pts for EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L; the R/M cohort had 99 pts for EORTC QLQ-C30 and 100 for EQ-5D-5L. At wk 12, compliance rates were >75% for LA and >80% for R/M cohorts for EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L. Mean change from baseline to wk 12 was minimal for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL, PF, and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores for both cohorts (Table). Mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and PF scores remained stable over 48 wk in the LA cohort (75-wk data unavailable) and over 75 wk in the R/M cohort. Most pts had improved or stable EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and PF scores relative to baseline during follow-up. Conclusions: HRQoL was generally maintained with pembro in LA and R/M cSCC cohorts and was not negatively impacted by tumor progression or AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT03284424. [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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCAR-T cell therapy research→French-language works237,207→