Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus dabrafenib (dab) and trametinib (tram) in <i>BRAF</i><sup>V600E/K</sup>-mutant melanoma: Long-term follow-up of KEYNOTE-022 parts 1, 2, and 3.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9516 Background: KEYNOTE-022 (NCT02130466) was a phase 1/2 study of pembro + dab + tram or pembro + tram in patients (pts) with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma (parts 1-3) or solid tumors (parts 4 and 5). In previous analyses of pts with BRAFV600E/K -mutant melanoma, pembro + dab + tram was shown to have manageable safety in parts 1-3, albeit with a higher incidence of TRAEs in part 3, and substantially improved PFS, DOR, and OS vs placebo + dab + tram in part 3, although the primary end point of a statistically significant improvement in PFS was not met. Long-term follow-up of pts with BRAFV600E/K-mutant melanoma in parts 1-3 are presented. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 y with unresectable stage III/IV BRAFV600E/K-mutant melanoma, ≥1 measurable lesion per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS 0/1, and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. In parts 1 and 2, which involved dose finding and confirmation, pts received pembro 2 mg/kg IV Q3W + dab 150 mg PO BID + tram 2 mg PO QD (MTD). In part 3, pts were randomized 1:1 to pembro + dab + tram at MTD or placebo + dab + tram. Primary end points were safety, tolerability, and MTD (parts 1 and 2); ORR per RECIST v1.1 by investigator review (part 2); and PFS per RECIST v1.1 by investigator review (part 3). Data cutoff was July 14, 2021. Results: Median (range) study follow-up was 72.9 mo (68.4-84.5) in parts 1 and 2 (n = 15) and 61.2 mo (50.7-67.5) for all pts (n = 120; 60 each arm) in part 3. Safety of pembro + dab + tram in parts 1 and 2 was consistent with prior reports; grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 11 pts (73%), and no additional DLTs occurred. ORR in parts 1 and 2 was 67% (95% CI, 38-88), which was similar to that reported at an earlier data cut (73% [95% CI, 45-92]); median DOR was 19.4 mo (95% CI, 2.8-NR), median OS was NR (95% CI, 10.3-NR), 48-mo OS rate was 60%, median PFS was 15.2 mo (95% CI, 4.2-NR), and 48-mo PFS rate was 28% (Ribas A et al. Nat Med. 2019;25:936-940). In part 3, median PFS was 17.0 mo (95% CI, 11.3-NR) for pembro + dab + tram vs 9.9 mo (95% CI, 6.7-15.6) for placebo + dab + tram (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.74) and 24-mo PFS rate was 47% vs 16%, and median OS was 46.3 mo (95% CI, 23.9-NR) vs 26.3 mo (95% CI, 18.2-38.6); and 24-mo OS rate was 63% vs 52%, respectively. ORR was 65% (95% CI, 52-77) for pembro + dab + tram vs 72% (95% CI, 59-83) for placebo + dab + tram; median DOR was 30.2 mo (95% CI, 14.1-NR) vs 12.1 mo (95% CI, 6.0-15.7). Safety in part 3 was similar to prior reports; grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 42 pts (70%) in the pembro + dab + tram arm vs 27 pts (45%) in the placebo + dab + tram arm (Ferrucci PF et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8:e001806). No additional grade 5 TRAEs occurred (1 grade 5 pneumonitis had occurred at prior analysis). Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, first-line pembro + dab + tram continued to show improved PFS, DOR, and OS compared with placebo + dab + tram in pts with BRAFV600E/K-mutant melanoma. TRAEs were more common with pembro + dab + tram but no new safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT02130466.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".