MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Phase I/II trial of durvalumab plus tremelimumab and stereotactic body radiotherapy for metastatic head and neck carcinoma: Final results.

2023· article· en· W4379282039 on OpenAlexaff
Houda Bahig, Phuc Félix Nguyen‐Tan, Denis Soulières, Brock Debenham, Danielle Charpentier, David A. Palma, Eric Winquist, Rahima Jamal, Khalil Sultanem, Olivier Ballivy, Édith Filion, Tyler Pittman, Manjula Maganti, Philip Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreWestern UniversityJewish General HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDurvalumabTremelimumabClinical endpointHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaInternal medicineOncologyPhases of clinical researchHead and neck cancerAdverse effectRadiation therapyNivolumabClinical trialImmunotherapyCancerIpilimumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6050 Background: Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 is now part of first line therapy in metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) to metastatic lesions can reduce tumor burden and could be immune-stimulatory. The combination of SBRT with dual-checkpoint blockade with Durvalumab (D, anti-PD-L1) and Tremelimumab (T, anti-CTLA-4) has not previously been tested in HNSCC. We report on the safety and efficacy of this triple treatment combination (TTC) consisting of SBRT sandwiched between cycles of D and T in oligometastatic HNSCC. Methods: This is a phase I/II single arm multi-institutional study powered for 35 patients with oligometatastatic HNSCC (2-10 lesions) (NCT03283605). D (1500 mg) and T (75 mg) were given for 4 monthly cycles, followed by monthly D for 8 monthly cycles. SBRT to 2-5 lesions was administered during cycle 2. The safety of the TTC was the primary endpoint of the phase I and was evaluated through assessment of Grade 3-5 TTC-related adverse events (AE), based on CTCAE (v 4.03). The primary endpoint of the phase II portion was 6-month progression free survival (PFS), with a predetermined 6-month PFS (6moPFS) rate greater than 27% considered as a positive signal to conduct further research on this combination. Results: A total of 33 evaluable patients were recruited (study accrual was interrupted by the COVID pandemic). The table describes patients’ characteristics. Patients had received 1, 2 and 3 prior systemic therapy lines in 48%, 21% and 9% of the cases, including 6 (18%) patients who had received prior anti-PD-1/L1 or anti-CTLA-4 therapies. The median prescribed and maximum SBRT doses were 45 Gy (range: 18-50) and 52.3 Gy (range: 28.1-69) in 3-5 fractions, respectively Fourteen patients (42%) had Grade ≥ 3 AE attributable to D and T. Only 1 patient developed Grade ≥ 3 AE attributable to SBRT. This patient, who had mucosal radionecrosis after re-irradiation and refused surgical debridement and flap reconstruction, specifically developed 2 Grade 3, 1 Grade 4 and 1 Grade 5 AE. Our primary efficacy endpoint, 6moPFS, was 69.7% (95% CI: 55.6-87.3). Median PFS was 11.9 months (6.94-14.5) and median OS was 25.1 months (17.9-28.4). Rates of complete response, partial response, stable disease and progressive disease were 9%, 21%, 33% and 12%, respectively, with 8 (24%) patients with no evaluable non-SBRT treated lesion. Conclusions: The addition of SBRT to dual-checkpoint inhibition led to 1 (3%) additional patient developing severe AE. Best response rates were encouraging. Our primary efficacy outcome, 6mo PFS was attained and was higher than what was expected in this patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT03283605 . [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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→