Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients (pts) with advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC): 36-month results of nivolumab plus chemotherapy (N+C) versus (C) from CheckMate 649.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4038 Background: CheckMate 649 (NCT02872116) is a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study in first-line treatment of pts with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. Primary results showed statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for N+C versus C in all randomized pts. Prior analyses conducted for 24-month follow-up (FUP) showed pts receiving N+C maintained HRQOL and experienced delayed deterioration in HRQOL compared with pts receiving C. Here we report additional analyses of HRQOL with 36-month FUP data. Methods: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gastric Cancer (FACT-Ga) and EQ-5D-3L results were collected at baseline (BL) and every 6 weeks while on treatment. Change from BL in FACT-Ga, EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Utility Index (UI) scores were analyzed using mixed models. Time to first symptom deterioration (TTSD), time until definitive deterioration (TuDD), and time to improvement (TTI) were estimated with Kaplan-Meier estimators and stratified Cox models; deterioration/improvement events were based on prespecified meaningful thresholds for change scores. Results: A total of 1,581 pts were randomized to N+C (n = 789) and C (n = 792); of those, 1,360 pts had BL and post-BL PROs and were included in the PRO population (N+C [n = 694] and C [n = 666]). With additional follow-up, least-squares mean differences from BL remained comparable between groups across visits for HRQOL measurements with exceptions. FACT-Ga total score, GaCS, physical well-being (WB), and emotional WB tended to favor N+C; social WB tended to favor C. For all randomized pts, most time-to-event endpoints favored N+C; like the 24-month analysis, statistically significant delays in deterioration were maintained for TuDD (except FACT-G Social WB) and TTSD (only FACT-GaCS and FACT-Ga total). Conclusions: These results confirm the earlier 24-month FUP findings. Compared with C alone, N+C maintained HRQOL with decreased risk of deterioration in pts with previously untreated advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC. Together with improved OS, data continue to support N+C as a first-line standard treatment for GC/GEJC/EAC. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116 . [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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".