MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Biomarker analysis and updated clinical follow-up from BLASST-1 (Bladder Cancer Signal Seeking Trial) of nivolumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing cystectomy.

2022· article· en· W4212984292 on OpenAlexaff
Shilpa Gupta, Ewan A. Gibb, Guru Sonpavde, Sumati Gupta, Benjamin L. Maughan, Neeraj Agarwal, Bradley A. McGregor, Christopher Weight, Xiao X. Wei, David J. Einstein, Christopher Dechet, Mark A. Preston, Matthew Mossanen, Bharat Thygarajan, Markus Eckstein, C. Marcela Díaz‐Montero, Paari Murugan, Peter C. Black, Badrinath R. Konety

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyBladder cancerGemcitabineOncologyNivolumabInternal medicineBiomarkerClinical endpointCisplatinCancerUrologyClinical trialChemotherapyImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

528 Background: The BLASST-1 study is multi-center phase II trial evaluating the combination of nivolumab (N) with gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) as a neoadjuvant therapy for patients (pts) with MIBC undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). The primary endpoint was pathologic down staging (PaR; ≤pT1N0). Safety, Relapse-free survival (RFS), Progression-free survival (PFS) and biomarker analyses were secondary endpoints. We previously reported a PaR rate of 65.8% and pCR rate of 49%. There were no safety concerns or delays to surgery. (ASCO GU 2020) Here, we correlate PaR with biomarkers (Tumor mutational burden (TMB), PD-L1 and molecular subtypes) and provide updated clinical follow-up (FU) data. Methods: Forty-one pts with MIBC (cT2-T4a, N≤1, M0) and candidates for RC were enrolled between Feb 2018 and June 2019; (cT2N0 90%, cT3N0 7%, cT4N1 3%). Pts received C (70mg/m2) IV on D1, G (1000mg/m2) on D1, D8 and N (360 mg) IV on D8 every 21 days for 4 cycles followed by RC within 8 weeks. For RNA-based analysis, GeneChip Human Exon 1.0 ST Array (Affymetrix) was used; baseline tumors from 37 patients passed quality control and had available transcriptome data. A cohort (n=223) of patients treated with NAC+RC was used as a comparator for molecular subtyping analysis. DNA was extracted from baseline pre-treatment tumor samples and sequenced to an average depth of 150X and the DNA extracted from matched normal tissue (peripheral blood) to a mean depth of 50X. PD-L1 expression was assessed using IHC 28-8 antibody on baseline tumors. Results: At a median FU of 15.8 months,12-month RFS rate was 85.4% and PFS including death from any cause was 83%. There were no long-term safety concerns. Molecular subtyping found patients with a basal-type tumor (Basal or Claudin-low) had a more favorable overall PaR in 13/18 = 73% with PaR in 9/13 in basal (69%) and 4/5 in claudin-low (80%) compared to overall PaR of 58% for the luminal-type tumors (Luminal or Infiltrated luminal) with a breakdown of PaR in 5/8 (63%) in luminal and 6/11 (54%) in infiltrated luminal. In contrast, in the comparator NAC cohort, the PaR rates were similar for basal-type and luminal-type tumors, with 44% and 48% respectively. There was no correlation of PaR with TMB or PD-L1 expression from bassline pre-treatment tumors. Biomarker analyses from residual tumors in RC tissues are ongoing. Conclusions: The combination of N+GC was safe and efficacious in MIBC with encouraging outcomes of pathologic down staging and relapse-free survival at a median FU of 15.8 months. Molecular subtyping results suggest basal-type tumors may respond more favorably to this chemo-immunotherapy treatment regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT03294304.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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