Nivolumab plus radiotherapy with or without temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: Results from exploratory phase I cohorts of CheckMate 143
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The phase 1 cohorts (1c+1d) of CheckMate 143 (NCT02017717) evaluated the safety/tolerability and efficacy of nivolumab plus radiotherapy (RT) ± temozolomide (TMZ) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Methods In total, 136 patients were enrolled. In part A (safety lead-in), 31 patients (n = 15, methylated/unknown MGMT promoter; n = 16, unmethylated MGMT promoter) received nivolumab and RT+TMZ (NIVO+RT+TMZ) and 30 patients with unmethylated MGMT promoter received NIVO+RT. In part B (expansion), patients with unmethylated MGMT promoter were randomized to NIVO+RT+TMZ (n = 29) or NIVO+RT (n = 30). Primary endpoint was safety/tolerability; secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results NIVO+RT±TMZ was tolerable; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51.6% (NIVO+RT+TMZ) and 30.0% (NIVO+RT) of patients in part A and 46.4% (NIVO+RT+TMZ) and 28.6% (NIVO+RT) in part B. No new safety signals were detected. In part A, median OS (mOS) with NIVO+RT+TMZ was 33.38 months (95% CI, 16.2 to not estimable) in patients with methylated MGMT promoter. In patients with unmethylated MGMT promoter, mOS was 16.49 months (12.94–22.08) with NIVO+RT+TMZ and 14.41 months (12.55–17.31) with NIVO+RT. In part B, mOS was 14.75 months (10.01–18.6) with NIVO+RT+TMZ and 13.96 months (10.81–18.14) with NIVO+RT in patients with unmethylated MGMT promoter. Conclusions CheckMate 143 was the first trial evaluating immune checkpoint inhibition with first-line treatment of glioblastoma. Results showed that NIVO can be safely combined with RT±TMZ, with no new safety signals. Toxicities, including lymphopenia, were more frequent with NIVO+RT+TMZ. OS was similar with or without TMZ in patients with unmethylated MGMT promoter, and differences by MGMT methylation status were observed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".