MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis of patients (pts) with in-transit metastases treated with nivolumab (NIVO) or ipilimumab (IPI) in CheckMate 238.

2021· article· en· W3172791693 on OpenAlexafffund
James Larkin, Helen Gogas, Michele Del Vecchio, Michele Maio, Petr Arenberger, Ana Arance, Jean‐Jacques Grob, Vanna Chiarion‐Sileni, Karl D. Lewis, Laurent Mortier, Patrick A. Ott, Georgina V. Long, Alfonsus Van Den Eertwegh, C. Lance Cowey, Michael Schenker, Marcus O. Butler, Maurice Lobo, Margarita Askelson, Paolo A. Ascierto, Jeffrey S. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb Canada
KeywordsMedicineNivolumabIpilimumabInternal medicineClinical endpointOncologyPopulationAdjuvantClinical trialCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9569 Background: In the phase 3 CheckMate 238 study, NIVO has demonstrated improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) vs IPI in pts with resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma, which was sustained at the 4-y analysis. Having in-transit metastases/satellites (ITM) is a poor prognostic factor, and pts with ITM are generally omitted from clinical trials. This study was the first and only adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor trial to include pts with ITM. Here, we present post hoc outcomes in this subgroup. Methods: Pts aged ≥15 y with completely resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma stratified by stage and tumor PD-L1 status were randomized 1:1 to NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W; n = 453) or IPI (10 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses, Q12W thereafter; n = 453) for a maximum of 1 y or until disease recurrence/unacceptable toxicity. Pts with ITM, with or without synchronous nodal involvement, were included. The primary study endpoint was RFS; overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint; and DMFS was exploratory. Results: Each of the 2 treatment groups had 164 pts with ITM. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups in pts with or without ITM; in pts with ITM vs without ITM, tumor ulceration was less frequent in NIVO-treated pts, and fewer IPI-treated pts had PD-L1 expression ≥5%. RFS and DMFS favored NIVO vs IPI in all ITM subgroups (table). OS was similar to the intention-to-treat (ITT) population with no differences noted between treatment groups or between ITM subgroups. Among pts with or without ITM, dominant metastatic sites were lung and lymph nodes, followed by brain, liver, and soft tissue (in varying order). Similar metastasis patterns were observed in pts with ITM regardless of nodal involvement. Treatment-related adverse events (any grade and grade 3/4) in pts with ITM were similar to those of the ITT population. Conclusions: Results of this post hoc 4-y analysis of CheckMate 238 showed that safety and efficacy were similar in pts with or without ITM, supporting the use of adjuvant NIVO in pts with ITM, regardless of nodal involvement. Clinical trial information: NCT02388906. [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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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