Quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST) of nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) versus sunitinib (SUN) in treatment-naïve, advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): A post-hoc analysis of CheckMate 9ER (CM 9ER) data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6567 Background: In CM 9ER (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier NCT03141177), N+C demonstrated significant progression-free survival gains (median: 17.0 vs. 8.3 months [mos]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52; P <.0001) and overall survival (OS) benefits (median: not reached vs. 29.5 mos; HR: 0.66; P <.001) vs. SUN as a first-line treatment for aRCC (Motzer et al. ASCO-GU 2021). To more fully understand the clinical benefits and risks associated with N+C vs. SUN from a patient perspective, we applied the Q-TWiST method to CM 9ER data to assess the quality-adjusted survival of these two treatment options, after a minimum follow-up of 16 mos (Sept DBL 2020). Methods: OS was partitioned into 3 states: time with any grade 3 or 4 adverse events (TOX), time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (TWiST), and time after progression (REL). The Q-TWiST is a metric that combines the quantity and quality (i.e., “utility”) of time spent in each of the 3 states TWiST, TOX, and REL. Sensitivity analyses estimated Q-TWiST across varying values of TOX and REL utilities. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on geographic region, programmed cell death-ligand 1 status, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk score. Based on minimal important difference norms (Revicki et al, Qual Life Res, 2006), a relative gain in Q-TWiST (i.e., Q-TWiST gains divided by OS in SUN) of ≥ 10% and ≥ 15% were qualified as “clinically important” and “clearly clinically important” gains, respectively. Non-parametric bootstrapping was used to generate 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 651), the Q-TWiST gain in the N+C arm was 4.0 mos (95% CI: 2.4, 5.7) vs. SUN arm, resulting in a relative gain of 16.9%. N+C patients had significantly longer TWiST (4.7 mos [95% CI: 2.9, 6.7]) and TOX (0.5 mos [95% CI: 0.1, 0.9]), but significantly shorter REL (-2.0 mos [95% CI: -4.1, -0.1]) than did SUN patients. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main analysis—the Q-TWiST benefit was robust across different ranges of U(TOX) and U(REL), with minimum and maximum Q-TWiST gains of 2.7 mos (11.7% relative gain) and 5.2 mos (22.2% relative gain), respectively. Subgroup analyses were consistent with the ITT population, with all results demonstrating ≥10% (“clinically important”) gains favoring N+C. Conclusions: In CM 9ER, N+C resulted in a statistically significant and “clearly clinically important” (i.e., ≥ 15%) longer quality-adjusted survival vs SUN. Most gains were driven by added time in relatively good health (i.e., TWiST). These Q-TWiST results may help inform both aRCC patients and their clinicians to assess more comprehensively the clinical benefits and risks of N+C and SUN in making critical treatment decisions. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".