MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Phase II trial of atezolizumab in BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: SWOG S1605 (NCT #02844816).

2021· article· en· W4240488819 on OpenAlexaff
Peter C. Black, Catherine M. Tangen, Parminder Singh, David J. McConkey, Scott Lucia, William T. Lowrance, Vadim S. Koshkin, Kelly Stratton, Trinity J. Bivalacqua, Wassim Kassouf, Sima P. Porten, Rick Bangs, Melissa Plets, Seth P. Lerner, Ian M. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAtezolizumabBladder cancerCystectomyClinical endpointInternal medicinePathologicalUrologyOncologySurgeryClinical trialCancerImmunotherapyNivolumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4541 Background: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care for patients with BCG-unresponsive high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), but many patients are unfit for surgery or elect bladder preservation. This trial was designed to evaluate the activity of atezolizumab in BCG-unresponsive high risk NMIBC. Methods: This single arm phase II registration trial testing systemic atezolizumab (1200 mg IV) every 3 weeks for one year aimed to enroll 135 (70 CIS and 65 non-CIS) eligible patients with histologically proven BCG-unresponsive high risk NMIBC who were unfit for or declined RC. Here we report the 18 month results for all eligible patients who received at least one protocol treatment. The co-primary endpoints were pathological complete response (CR) rate at 6 months in patients with CIS (reported at ASCO 2020), and event-free survival (EFS) in all patients at 18 months using Kaplan-Meier methods (KM), conditional on a positive CIS response rate. A sample size of 135 evaluable patients provided 93% statistical power for detecting a 30% 18-month EFS rate versus 20% using a one-sided alpha = 0.05. EFS in the subset with Ta/T1 disease and duration of response in CIS patients were secondary endpoints. Results: 172 patients were enrolled, 166 received at least one dose of atezolizumab and are included in the safety analysis, and, of those, 128 were eligible and included in the efficacy analysis. As previously reported, 20 (27%) out of 74 patients with CIS attained a pathologic CR at 6 months. The KM estimate of 12 month (actual 11.9 mo) duration of response after 6 month CR for CIS patients was 54% (95% CI 30%, 78%) and the median duration of response was 16.5 months. The KM EFS rate at 18 months in 74 patients with CIS was 17% (90% CI 9%, 25%). The 18 month KM EFS rate in the overall population of 128 patients with Ta, T1 and CIS was 29% (90% CI 22%, 36%). The 18 month actuarial EFS rate in 54 patients with Ta/T1 disease was 45% (90% CI 34, 57%). Any possibly or probably treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) was observed in 142 out of 166 (86%) patients who received any atezolizumab regardless of eligibilty. The most frequent TRAEs were fatigue 72 (43%), diarrhea 34 (20%), and anemia 38 (23%). Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 28 (17%) patients, including rash in 4 (2%), hyponatremia in 4 (2%), hypertension in 3 (2%) and elevated liver function tests in 3 (2%). There were two treatment-related deaths (sepsis and respiratory failure due to myasthenia gravis). Conclusions: The observed response of atezolizumab at 6 and 18 months in patients with BCG-unresponsive CIS suggests that this could be a valuable treatment to address a critical unmet need in this patient population. The 18 month EFS in patients with Ta/T1 disease suggests activity in this patient subset. This trial provided no new safety concerns. Funding: NIH/NCI grants: CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, CA180863 and in part by Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT02844816.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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