MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of liver metastases on efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade in treatment refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC): CCTG CO.26.

2022· article· en· W4286293801 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eric Xueyu Chen, Jonathan M. Loree, Dongsheng Tu, Christopher J. O’Callaghan, Hagen F. Kennecke, Derek J. Jonker, Ahmad Chaudhary, Bruce Colwell, Mohammed Harb, Nathalie Aucoin, Félix Couture, Setareh Samimi, Petr Kavan, Benoit Samson, John R. Goffin, Scott Berry, Tahir Abbas, Sheryl Koski, Alice C. Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité de MontréalHorizon Health NetworkCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyOttawa HospitalNova Scotia Cancer CentreHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité de SherbrookeSt. John’s Health Sciences CentreJewish General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTremelimumabDurvalumabMedicineBlockadeInternal medicineHazard ratioClinical endpointColorectal cancerOncologyImmune checkpointRefractory (planetary science)CancerSurgical oncologyGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialImmunotherapyConfidence intervalNivolumabIpilimumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3600 Background: Immune checkpoint blockade has limited activity in microsatellite-stable (MSS) or mis-match repair proficient (pMMR) CRC. Recent findings suggest that immunotherapy efficacy may be modulated by the presence of liver metastases. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) CO.26 study to investigate the relationship between the presence of liver metastases and activity of immune checkpoint blockade. Methods: The CCTG CO.26 study was a randomized phase II study (NCT02870920). Pts with treatment refractory CRC were randomized to durvalumab, tremelimumab and best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone in a 2:1 fashion. Treatment consisted of durvalumab (1500 mg) q 28 days and tremelimumab (75 mg) q 28 days for the first 4 cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and a two-sided p-value <0.10 was considered significant. Results: Between 08/20106-06/2017, 180 pts were enrolled and 179 treated as randomized. Pt baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. With a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the median OS was 6.6 months for durvalumab and tremelimumab and 4.1 months for BSC (p = 0.07; Hazard ratio (HR): 0.72, 90% confidence interval (CI): 0.54 – 0.97). Progression free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months and 1.9 months respectively (HR 1.01, 90% CI: 0.76 – 1.34). Disease control rate (DCR) was 22.6% for durvalumab and tremelimumab and 6.6% for BSC (p = 0.006). At study entry, liver metastases were absent in 29.4% pts. Pts without liver metastases had improved OS compared to those with liver metastases, irrespective of treatments. PFS was significantly longer in those without liver metastases on durvalumab and tremelimumab (HR: 0.55, 90% CI: 0.31 – 0.97, p = 0.08, interaction p = 0.02). DCR was 49% in patients without liver metastases with durvalumab and tremelimumab, compared to 10% in those with liver metastases (Odds Ratio: 0.12, 90% CI: 0.05 – 0.26). Conclusions: Pts without liver metastases had improved OS and PFS, and higher DCR. Absence of liver metastases may be an indicator for improved efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade and should be investigated in future studies. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207