MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial: Subgroup analysis by duration of treatment-free interval (TFI) from end of chemotherapy to start of maintenance.

2021· article· en· W3171334864 on OpenAlexaff
Srikala S. Sridhar, Thomas Powles, Yohann Loriot, Miguel Á. Climent Durán, Shilpa Gupta, Norihiko Tsuchiya, Aristotelis Bamias, Andrea Ardizzoni, Anders Ullén, Bo Huang, Nuno Costa, Robert J Laliberte, Alessandra di Pietro, Cora N. Sternberg, Petros Grivas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAvelumabChemotherapyHazard ratioInternal medicineMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaUrologyGastroenterologyNeutropeniaIntention-to-treat analysisPost-hoc analysisSurgeryUrothelial carcinomaBladder cancerOncologyRandomized controlled trialPembrolizumabImmunotherapyCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4527 Background: The phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, which enrolled patients (pts) with advanced UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy, showed that maintenance therapy with avelumab + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) compared with BSC alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI: 0.56, 0.86; 1-sided P= 0.0005]). However, the optimal timing for starting avelumab after completing 1L chemotherapy is unknown. In this post hoc analysis, we report efficacy by duration of the TFI from completion of 1L chemotherapy. Methods: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432), eligible pts had unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC without disease progression following 4 to 6 cycles of 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy. Pts were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350) after a TFI of 4 to 10 weeks from the last dose of chemotherapy. In this exploratory analysis, subgroups with a TFI of 4 to < 6 weeks ( < 42 days), 6 to < 8 weeks (42 to < 56 days), or 8 to 10 weeks (≥56 days) were evaluated. Results: In the avelumab + BSC and BSC alone arms, the TFI was 4 to < 6 weeks in 143 and 158 pts, 6 to < 8 weeks in 109 and 80 pts, and 8 to 10 weeks in 98 and 110 pts, respectively. Baseline characteristics in these subgroups were generally well balanced between arms. For both arms combined, however, the TFI 4 to < 6 weeks subgroup vs the other 2 subgroups included more pts with visceral metastases (57.8% vs 54.0% and 50.0%), an objective response with 1L chemotherapy (76.4% vs 69.3% and 68.3%), and an ECOG performance status of 1 (44.5% vs 33.3% and 35.6%). OS was prolonged with avelumab + BSC vs BSC alone in all subgroups; the HR was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.546, 1.059) in the TFI 4 to < 6 weeks subgroup (median OS, 19.9 months [95% CI: 16.3, 25.3] vs 13.5 months [95% CI: 11.7, 17.4]), 0.64 (95% CI: 0.404, 1.021) in the TFI 6 to < 8 weeks subgroup (median OS, 26.1 months [95% CI: 19.9, not estimable] vs 21.0 months [95% CI: 10.7, not estimable]), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.468, 1.035) in the TFI 8 to 10 weeks subgroup (median OS, 20.1 months [95% CI: 13.8, not estimable] vs 14.1 months [95% CI: 11.7, 19.6]). Conclusions: In patients with advanced UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy, avelumab 1L maintenance prolonged OS irrespective of the TFI assessed in this study (4-10 weeks), supporting this new treatment strategy as a standard of care. Differences in duration of TFI were likely related to individual patient- and disease-specific characteristics or logistics and did not impact the OS benefit observed with avelumab 1L maintenance. Clinical trial information: NCT02603432.

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)0.003
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→