Health-related quality of life for pembrolizumab (pembro) plus ipilimumab (ipi) versus pembro plus placebo in patients with metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥ 50%: KEYNOTE-598.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9038 Background: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-598 study (NCT03302234), OS (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85–1.37; P = 0.74) and PFS (1.06; 95% CI, 0.86–1.30; P = 0.72) were not improved for pembro + ipi vs pembro + placebo in patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50% and without EGFR/ALK genomic alterations. Incidence of treatment-related grade 3–5 AEs, fatal AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation was higher with pembro + ipi vs pembro + placebo. We present prespecified patient-reported outcome (PRO) analyses from KEYNOTE-598. Methods: Pts (n = 568) with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles + ipi 1 mg/kg or placebo Q6W for up to 18 cycles. The EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-LC13, EQ-5D-5L, and NSCLC-SAQ were administered at cycles 1‒7, then every 3 cycles through cycle 19, and every 4 cycles until PD or a maximum of 35 cycles. Change from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) score from the QLQ-C30 and the time to true deterioration (TTD) in the composite endpoint of cough (LC13), chest pain (LC13), or dyspnea (C30) were secondary objectives in KEYNOTE-598. Change from baseline in GHS/QoL was analyzed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with missing at random assumption. Difference in TTD was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model and stratified log-rank test. PROs were analyzed in all pts who completed ≥1 PRO assessment and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. P values are two-sided and nominal. Results: As of data cutoff (Sept 1, 2020), PRO analyses included 280 pts in the pembro + ipi group and 280 pts in the pembro + placebo group. QLQ-C30 completion rates were 95.7% in the pembro + ipi group vs 96.1% in the pembro + placebo group at baseline and 63.6% vs 70.0% at week 18. QLQ-LC13 completion rates were 95.4% vs 96.4% at baseline and 63.6% vs 69.6% at week 18. Mean QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores at baseline were 62.8 in the pembro + ipi group and 64.2 in the pembro + placebo group and were similar between the groups across the follow-up period. Least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) change from baseline to week 18 in GHS/QoL scores was improved in both groups (pembro + ipi: 3.7 [0.9‒6.5]; pembro + placebo: 4.1 [1.4‒6.9]), with no significant difference between groups (LS mean difference −0.4 [−4.0 to 3.1], P = 0.82). Median TTD in composite of cough, chest pain, or dyspnea was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 13.0 mo–NR) in the pembro + ipi group vs 20.0 (95% CI, 12.7–NR) mo in the pembro + placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.74‒1.30]; P = 0.91). Conclusions: There was no difference in health-related QoL or TTD in lung cancer symptoms between pembro + ipi and pembro + placebo in pts with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. Clinical trial information: NCT03302234.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".