MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

First-line lenvatinib + pembrolizumab treatment across non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas: Results of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-B61 study.

2023· article· en· W4379282010 on OpenAlexaff
Chung‐Han Lee, Howard Gurney, Vagif Atduev, Cristina Suárez, Miguel Á. Climent Durán, David Pook, Piotr Tomczak, Philippe Barthélémy, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Taron Nalbandian, V.P. Stus, Thomas Ferguson, Paweł Wiechno, Erhan Gökmen, Louis Lacombe, Craig Gedye, Joseph E. Burgents, Manish Sharma, Xiang Peng, Laurence Albigès

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPembrolizumabMedicineChromophobe cellClear cellLenvatinibRenal cell carcinomaHistologyInternal medicineOncologyClinical endpointCabozantinibCancerClinical trialImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4518 Background: Lenvatinib (lenva) + pembrolizumab (pembro) is a first-line treatment for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Initial results of the single-arm, phase 2 KEYNOTE-B61 (NCT04704219) study showed antitumor activity of lenva + pembro in patients (pts) with advanced non-clear cell RCC who had opportunity for ≥24 wk of follow-up (n=82). We report results from the complete cohort of pts enrolled in KEYNOTE-B61 (N=158) with extended follow-up. Methods: Adults with previously untreated advanced non-clear cell RCC and measurable disease per RECIST v1.1 received lenva 20 mg PO QD + pembro 400 mg IV Q6W for up to 18 cycles (~2 y). The primary end point was ORR per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points included DOR, DCR, and PFS per RECIST v1.1 by BICR; OS; and safety. Histology was assessed by investigator (assessment by central review is planned). Results: Of 158 treated pts, 93 (59%), 29 (18%), and 21 (13%) had papillary, chromophobe, and unclassified histology, respectively. Additionally, 6 pts (4%) had translocation and 9 (6%) had other histology. 70 pts (44%) had IMDC favorable risk and 88 (56%) had intermediate/poor risk. Median follow-up was 14.9 mo (range 8.7-19.7). ORR was 49% (95% CI, 41-57; 9 CRs [6%]; 69 PRs [44%]). DCR was 82% (95% CI, 75-88). Median DOR was not reached (NR; range, 1.5+ to 15.3+ mo). By Kaplan-Meier estimate, 75% of responders had a response for ≥12 mo. ORR and DCR by histology are shown in the table. For the IMDC favorable risk group, ORR was 51% (95% CI, 39-64) and DCR was 87% (95% CI, 77-94). For the IMDC intermediate/poor risk group, ORR was 48% (95% CI, 37-59) and DCR was 78% (95% CI, 68-86). In all pts, median PFS and OS were 17.9 mo (95% CI, 13.5-NR) and NR (95% CI, NR-NR), respectively; 12-mo rates were 63% and 82%. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 149 pts (94%) and were consistent with results from other studies. The most common (≥30%) TRAEs were hypertension (n=90; 57%), diarrhea (n=69; 44%), and hypothyroidism (n=58; 37%). Grade 3-4 TRAEs occurred in 81 pts (51%). Overall, 17 pts (11%) discontinued pembro, 14 (9%) discontinued lenva, and 5 (3%) discontinued both drugs because of TRAEs. No deaths occurred because of TRAEs. Conclusions: In pts with advanced non-clear cell RCC enrolled in KEYNOTE-B61, lenva + pembro showed antitumor activity with no new safety signals. These data support the use of lenva + pembro as first-line treatment for pts with non-clear cell RCC, regardless of histology. Clinical trial information: NCT04704219 . [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)0.003
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→