MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Safety and efficacy outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and brain metastases: results from the CheckMate 920 trial.

2021· article· en· W3167858868 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hamid Emamekhoo, Mark R. Olsen, Bradley Curtis Carthon, Alexandra Drakaki, Ivor Percent, Ana M. Molina, Daniel C. Cho, Johanna C. Bendell, Lucio Gordan, Arash Rezazadeh Kalebasty, Daniel J. George, Thomas E. Hutson, Edward Arrowsmith, Joshua Zhang, Jesús Zoco, Jennifer L. Johansen, David Leung, Scott S. Tykodi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb Canada
KeywordsMedicineIpilimumabInternal medicineNivolumabClinical endpointRenal cell carcinomaTolerabilityClinical trialBrain metastasisOncologyAdverse effectSurgeryCancerImmunotherapyMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4515 Background: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and tolerability in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Previous phase 3 clinical trials of patients with advanced or metastatic cancers have mostly excluded patients with brain metastases. CheckMate 920 is an ongoing, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of NIVO+IPI treatment in patients with aRCC with a high unmet medical need. We present updated safety and efficacy results for the cohort of patients with aRCC of any histology and brain metastases from CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954). Methods: Patients with previously untreated advanced/metastatic aRCC of any histology, with asymptomatic brain metastases (not currently receiving corticosteroids or radiation), and Karnofsky performance status ≥ 70% were assigned to treatment with NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 doses followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks for ≤ 2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥ 3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 (both per investigator). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS). Results: Of 28 treated patients with brain metastases, 85.7% were men; median (range) age was 60 (38–87) years, and 14.3% had sarcomatoid features. With 24.5 months minimum follow-up of the 28 patients enrolled, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.4 (0.0–23.3) months for NIVO and 2.1 (0.0–3.3) months for IPI. No grade 5 imAEs occurred. Grade 3–4 imAEs by category were diarrhea/colitis (7.1%), hypophysitis (3.6%), rash (3.6%), hepatitis (3.6%), and diabetes mellitus (3.6%). Of the 25 patients who were evaluable for ORR, the ORR was 32.0% (95% CI, 14.9–53.5). No patients achieved complete response, 8 achieved partial response, and 10 patients had stable disease. Median time to response (range) was 2.8 (2.4–3.0) months. Median duration (range) of response was 24.0 (3.9–not estimable [NE]) months; 4 of 8 responders remain without reported progression. Of 28 patients, 7 (25%) had intracranial progression. Median PFS (n = 28) was 9.0 (95% CI, 2.9–12.0) months. Median OS (n = 28) was still not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months–NE). Conclusions: In patients with previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases, a population with high unmet medical need that is often underrepresented in clinical trials, the approved treatment regimen of NIVO+IPI followed by NIVO for aRCC showed no new safety signals and continues to show encouraging antitumor activity with longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→