Adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (EC/GEJC) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT): Expanded efficacy and safety analyses from CheckMate 577.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4003 Background: In CheckMate 577 (NCT02743494), NIVO demonstrated a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in disease-free survival (DFS; primary endpoint) vs placebo (PBO) and was well tolerated in patients (pts) with resected (R0) stage II/III EC/GEJC who received neoadjuvant CRT and had residual pathologic disease. Median DFS doubled with NIVO vs PBO (22.4 vs 11.0 months; HR 0.69; 96.4% CI 0.56–0.86; P = 0.0003). Serious treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and TRAEs leading to discontinuation were reported for < 10% of pts with NIVO and 3% with PBO. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to NIVO 240 mg or PBO Q2W for 16 weeks, followed by NIVO 480 mg or PBO Q4W. Here, we present additional efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life (QoL) data from CheckMate 577. Results: 794 pts were randomized (NIVO, 532; PBO, 262). Distant recurrence was reported for 29% vs 39% and locoregional recurrence for 12% vs 17% of pts in the NIVO vs PBO groups, respectively. Median distant metastasis-free survival was 28.3 vs 17.6 months with NIVO vs PBO (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.60–0.92). Median progression-free survival 2 (PFS2; time from randomization to progression after subsequent systemic therapy, initiation of second subsequent systemic therapy, or death, whichever is earlier) was not reached with NIVO vs 32.1 months with PBO (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60–0.99). TRAEs with potential immunologic etiology (select TRAEs; sTRAEs) reported for NIVO are presented in the table. Results for the FACT-ECS and FACT-G7 showed similar trends for QoL improvement from baseline for NIVO and PBO during treatment and maintained benefit post-treatment. Conclusions: Adjuvant NIVO demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy, an acceptable safety profile, and maintained QoL, providing further support for its use as a new standard of care for pts with resected EC/GEJC who received neoadjuvant CRT with residual pathologic disease. Clinical trial information: NCT02743494. [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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".