Abstract GS1-02: Final results of KEYNOTE-355: Randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs placebo + chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 trial (NCT02819518), pembrolizumab (pembro) combined with chemotherapy (chemo) showed statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS compared to placebo + chemo in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) ≥10. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the CPS ≥1 population, and statistical significance was not tested in the ITT population due to the prespecified testing strategy. Here, we compare outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional CPS cut-offs to the primary results of KEYNOTE-355. Methods: 847 patients with measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS 0-1, and ≥6 month disease-free interval were randomized 2:1 to pembro + chemo (nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days; paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days; or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or placebo + chemo for up to 35 administrations of pembro/placebo or until progression/intolerable toxicity. Patients were stratified by chemo type (taxane or gemcitabine-carboplatin), PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 or <1), and prior neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment with same-class chemo (yes or no). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS (RECIST v1.1, blinded independent central review) in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (CPS ≥10 and ≥1) and in the ITT population. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs in the additional CPS subgroups were based on an unstratified Cox model. Results: At the time of the final analysis (data cutoff, June 15, 2021), the median time from randomization to data cutoff was 44 months. Baseline characteristics of the CPS 1-9, 10-19, and ≥20 subgroups were generally similar to those of the ITT population. In the primary analyses, the HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.73 (0.55-0.95) in the CPS ≥10 subgroup, 0.86 (0.72-1.04) in the CPS ≥1 subgroup, and 0.89 (0.76-1.05) in the ITT population; HRs (95% CI) for PFS were 0.66 (0.50-0.88), 0.75 (0.62-0.91), and 0.82 (0.70-0.98), respectively. Efficacy data are presented for the additional CPS subgroups in the Table. For OS, results in the CPS 1-9 subgroup showed comparable efficacy for pembro + chemo and placebo + chemo; however, results in the CPS 10-19 and CPS ≥20 subgroups showed a similar treatment benefit with the addition of pembro. Results for PFS were generally consistent with those observed for OS. Conclusions: These results provide support that CPS ≥10 is a reasonable cut-off to define the population of patients with metastatic TNBC expected to derive treatment benefit from pembro + chemo. Table. Efficacy in additional subgroups of patients by PD-L1 CPSCPS subgroupTreatmentMedian OS, mo (95% CI)OS HR (95% CI)*Median PFS, mo (95% CI)PFS HR (95% CI)*1-9†Pembro + Chemo. n = 20513.9. (12.2-16.6)1.09 (0.85-1.40)5.7. (5.4-7.4)0.85 (0.65-1.11)Placebo + Chemo n = 10815.5. (12.4-17.6)5.6. (5.3-7.6)10-19†Pembro + Chemo. n = 8020.3. (15.2-29.0)0.71 (0.46-1.09)9.9. (7.4-11.8)0.70 (0.44-1.09)Placebo + Chemo n = 3917.6. (10.3-25.8)7.6. (5.3-9.7)≥20‡Pembro + Chemo. n = 14024.0 (19.0-28.3)0.72 (0.51-1.01)9.2 (7.6-11.8)0.62 (0.44-0.88)Placebo + Chemo n = 6415.6. (12.3-20.8)5.4 (3.9-7.2)*Analyses based on an unstratified Cox model. †Post-hoc analyses. ‡Prespecified exploratory analyses. Citation Format: Javier Cortes, David W. Cescon, Hope S. Rugo, Zbigniew Nowecki, Seock-Ah Im, Mastura Md Yusof, Carlos Gallardo, Oleg Lipatov, Carlos Henrique Barrios, Jose Perez-Garcia, Hiroji Iwata, Norikazu Masuda, Marco Torregroza Otero, Erhan Gokmen, Sherene Loi, Zifang Guo, Xuan Zhou, Vassiliki Karantza, Wilbur Pan, Peter Schmid. Final results of KEYNOTE-355: Randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs placebo + chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-02.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".