MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376613834 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.101571

LBA1 Final analysis of the placebo-controlled randomised phase III IMpassion031 trial evaluating neoadjuvant atezolizumab (atezo) plus chemotherapy (CT) followed by open-label adjuvant atezo in patients (pts) with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC)

2023· article· en· W4376613834 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)McGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersF. Hoffmann-La RocheEisaiSanofiDaiichi-SankyoPfizerAstraZenecaDaiichi Sankyo EuropeEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineAtezolizumabInternal medicineCyclophosphamideOncologyAdjuvantNeoadjuvant therapyCapecitabinePlaceboPopulationBreast cancerGastroenterologySurgeryChemotherapyCancerImmunotherapyPathologyPembrolizumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMpassion031 met its primary objective, significantly improving pathological complete response (pCR) rate with atezo added to neoadjuvant CT in pts with eTNBC (58% vs 41% with CT alone in the intent-to-treat [ITT] population; 17% difference, 1-sided p=0.0044) [Mittendorf 2020]. Benefit from atezo was seen regardless of PD-L1 status. Pts with untreated stage II/III eTNBC and a primary tumour >2 cm were randomised 1:1 to placebo or atezo 840 mg q2w + neoadjuvant CT (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 qw for 12 wk, then doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 + cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 q2w for 8 wk). After surgery, pts randomised to atezo received open-label atezo 1200 mg q3w for 11 cycles. Pts without pCR could have standard adjuvant systemic therapy (± atezo). Stratification factors were disease stage (II vs III) and PD-L1 status (IC <1% vs ≥1% by SP142). Secondary efficacy endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the ITT and PD-L1+ populations. After ∼39 mos’ median follow-up, EFS, DFS and OS numerically favoured atezo consistently across key clinical subgroups (Table). Among pts without pCR, 14/70 (20%) in the atezo arm vs 33/99 (33%) in the placebo arm received additional adjuvant systemic therapy, most often capecitabine (4/70 [6%] vs 26/99 [26%]). In exploratory analyses, pCR was highly prognostic for long-term outcome. Exploratory ctDNA analyses showed clearance in most pts (including all ctDNA-evaluable pts with pCR) at surgery. Positive ctDNA at/after surgery was associated with poor prognosis. There were no new safety signals or treatment-related deaths with atezo.Table: LBA1EndpointITTPD-L1+aPD-L1-expressing tumour-infiltrating immune cells on ≥1% tumour area by SP142.PlaceboAtezoPlaceboAtezoEFSEvents, n/N (%)41/168 (24)31/165 (19)17/75 (23)11/77 (14)HRbStratified.0.76 (0.47–1.21)0.55 (0.26–1.18)1 y, %91 (86–95)95 (92–98)89 (82–96)96 (92–100)2 y, %80 (74–86)85 (79–90)80 (71–89)89 (82–96)DFScIn operated pts. HR = hazard ratio.Events, n/N (%)31/153 (20)24/155 (15)11/67 (16)8/73 (11)HRbStratified.0.76 (0.44–1.30)0.57 (0.23–1.43)2 y, %83 (77–89)87 (82–93)87 (79–95)91 (85–98)OSEvents, n/N (%)28/168 (17)16/165 (10)9/75 (12)7/77 (9)HRbStratified.0.56 (0.30–1.04)0.71 (0.26–1.91)2 y, %90 (85–95)95 (91–98)91 (84–98)95 (89–100)Ranges in brackets are 95% CIs.a PD-L1-expressing tumour-infiltrating immune cells on ≥1% tumour area by SP142.b Stratified.c In operated pts. HR = hazard ratio. Open table in a new tab Ranges in brackets are 95% CIs. The significant pCR benefit with the addition of atezo to CT for eTNBC translated into numerically improved EFS, DFS and OS. Long-term safety results are consistent with previous reports.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.327 · 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