MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment safety with nivolumab (NIVO) in patients (pts) with resected stage IIIB/C or IV melanoma: Analysis of CheckMate 238 four-year follow-up (FU) data.

2021· article· en· W3169994009 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jeffrey S. Weber, Helen Gogas, Xiaowu Sun, Christine Yip, Fiona Taylor, Julia Braverman, Maurice Lobo, Pratik K. Thakkar, Andriy Moshyk, James Larkin, Paolo A. Ascierto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb Canada
KeywordsMedicineNivolumabDiscontinuationInternal medicineRandomizationQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationIpilimumabAdverse effectOncologyRandomized controlled trialCancerImmunotherapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9574 Background: In CheckMate 238, NIVO 3 mg/kg vs ipilimumab 10 mg/kg showed significantly longer recurrence-free survival and a lower rate of grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in pts with completely resected stage IIIB/C or IV melanoma. This analysis assessed the association of long-term HRQoL and TRAEs in NIVO-treated pts in this trial. Methods: HRQoL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 (global health status [GHS] and physical/emotional functioning) and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaires administered after randomization, during 1 y of treatment (wk 5, 7, 11, 17, 25, 37, and 49), at posttreatment FU visits 1 and 2 (FU1 and FU2; 30 and 114 days after last dose), and at survival FU visits up to 4 y after last dose (EQ-5D-3L only). NIVO-treated pts were grouped based on whether they had experienced a grade 3–4 TRAE, any-grade TRAE leading to NIVO discontinuation, or any-grade select (immune-related) TRAE on treatment or up to 100 days after last dose. Longitudinal change from baseline (BL) in scores was assessed for pts with and without TRAEs having patient-reported outcome data at BL and ≥1 post-BL assessment (HRQoL population) using descriptive statistics. QLQ-C30 subscale and VAS changes of 10 and 7, respectively, were considered clinically meaningful. Results: The HRQoL population comprised 446 of 453 pts randomized to NIVO. EQ-5D-3L assessments were completed by 81% of survivors (263/324) after 4 y post-randomization. Grade 3–4 TRAEs occurred in 17% of NIVO-treated pts (77/446). A slight trend toward deterioration of GHS from BL on treatment was noted, with clinically meaningful deterioration at posttreatment FU1 (mean [SD], −13.8 [25.0]) and FU2 (−10.3 [22.0]; last available time point). For the VAS, a similar trend on treatment was noted (−6.9 [28.3] at wk 11), with a clinically meaningful deterioration after NIVO discontinuation (−9.9 [27.0] at FU1) and a return to BL level by the start of survival FU. For pts without grade 3–4 TRAEs, mean change from BL scores remained stable (ie, no clinically meaningful deterioration on treatment or during FU). Any-grade TRAEs led to NIVO discontinuation in 9% of pts (42/446); HRQoL findings were similar to those for pts with grade 3–4 TRAEs. The most common any-grade TRAE was fatigue (35%). No clinically meaningful deterioration in VAS was noted for any select TRAE during FU except for hyperthyroidism (8%), with which deterioration occurred at FU1. EORTC QLQ-C30 physical and emotional functioning results will be presented. Conclusions: In CheckMate 238, pts with TRAEs showed early HRQoL deterioration after NIVO discontinuation, but HRQoL returned to BL levels with no sustained deterioration during survival FU. Overall, HRQoL was maintained on treatment and over a long-term FU period in pts with resected melanoma receiving adjuvant NIVO. Clinical trial information: NCT02388906.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→