MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for the treatment of post-chemotherapy metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Additional results from the randomized phase 2 CheckMate 650 trial.

2023· article· en· W4324136398 on OpenAlexaff
Padmanee Sharma, Michael Krainer, Fred Saad, Daniel Castellano, Jens Bedke, Mariusz Kwiatkowski, Akash Patnaik, Giuseppe Procopio, Paweł Wiechno, Samith T. Kochuparambil, Christian Thomas, Jóse Ángel Arranz Arija, Steven McCune, Steinbjørn Hansen, Gedske Daugaard, Neha P. Amin, Yumeng Wang, Justin M. David, Russell K. Pachynski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineIpilimumabCabazitaxelNivolumabDocetaxelAbiraterone acetateProstate cancerCohortPrednisoneRandomized controlled trialOncologyTaxaneChemotherapyClinical trialCancerAndrogen deprivation therapyBreast cancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

22 Background: In preliminary analyses from the randomized phase 2, open-label CheckMate 650 trial, nivolumab (NIVO) 1 mg/kg (N1) plus ipilimumab (IPI) 3 mg/kg (I3) Q3W × 4 doses showed clinical activity in patients (pts) with post-chemotherapy (post-CT) mCRPC, particularly those with high tumor mutational burden (TMB), but early toxicity contributed to treatment discontinuations. Here, we report results from pts with post-CT mCRPC receiving alternative NIVO+IPI dosing regimens vs IPI alone vs cabazitaxel (CABA) in CheckMate 650. Methods: Newly enrolled pts previously treated with docetaxel for mCRPC were randomized 2:2:1:2 to cohorts D1 (NIVO 3 mg/kg [N3] + IPI 1 mg/kg [I1] Q3W × 4 doses then NIVO 480 mg Q4W), D2 (N1 Q3W × 8 doses + I3 Q6W × 4 doses then NIVO 480 mg Q4W), D3 (I3 Q3W × 4 doses), or D4 (CABA 20 or 25 mg/m2 Q3W + prednisone 10 mg × 10 doses). Crossover from cohorts D3 and D4 to cohort D1 was allowed after radiographic progressive disease. Outcomes included safety, objective response rate (ORR), prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR; confirmed PSA decline ≥ 50% from baseline), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR), and overall survival (OS). Associations between efficacy and TMB were assessed. Results: Overall, 259 pts were randomized (D1, n = 73; D2, n = 74; D3, n = 38; D4, n = 74). Median (range) follow-up for OS was 23.3 (6.0–31.5) months. In the NIVO+IPI cohorts (D1 and D2), median duration of therapy was 2.8 and 2.4 months; the median number of IPI doses received was 4 and 2, and 15% and 26% of pts discontinued due to study drug toxicity, respectively. Two pts died due to study drug toxicity (1 each in cohorts D1 and D2). Key safety and efficacy data are shown. Several pts in cohorts D1 and D2 showed notable reductions (75-100%) in tumor size and PSA. Approximately one-third of pts in cohorts D3 and D4 crossed over to D1. Based on preliminary analyses in small numbers of evaluable pts, there was no clear and consistent association between efficacy and tissue or blood TMB in the NIVO+IPI cohorts (D1 and D2). Conclusions: These results further support the clinical activity of NIVO+IPI in select pts with post-CT mCRPC. Detailed evaluations of the characteristics of responders to NIVO+IPI, including more expansive biomarker analyses, are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02985957 . [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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207