Atezolizumab alone or in combination did not demonstrate a favorable risk-benefit profile in myelodysplastic syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present primary results from the phase 1b GO29754 study evaluating the safety and tolerability of atezolizumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor, alone and in combination with azacitidine, a hypomethylating agent (HMA), in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) or HMA-naïve myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Patients with R/R MDS received atezolizumab for 12 months (cohort A) or atezolizumab plus azacitidine for 6 cycles followed by atezolizumab as maintenance for 8 cycles (cohort B). Patients with HMA-naïve MDS received atezolizumab plus azacitidine until loss of clinical benefit (cohort C). Safety, activity, and exploratory end points were investigated. Forty-six patients were enrolled and received treatment (cohort A, n = 11; cohort B, n = 14; cohort C, n = 21). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE) on study, and all patients discontinued atezolizumab. In cohort A, 7 patients (63.6%) died, and no patients responded. In cohort B, 8 patients (57.1%) discontinued azacitidine, 11 (78.6%) died, and 2 (14.3%) responded. In cohort C, all 21 patients discontinued azacitidine, 13 died (61.9%), and 13 (61.9%) responded. The study was terminated by the sponsor before completion of recruitment because of the unexpected high early death rate in cohort C (6 [46.2%] of 13 deaths were due to AEs and occurred within the first 4 treatment cycles.). The high death rate and poor efficacy observed in this study do not support a favorable risk-benefit profile for atezolizumab as a single agent or in combination with azacitidine in R/R or HMA-naïve MDS. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02508870.
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) | 0.001 | 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".