Efficacy, safety and patient reported outcomes (PROs) from the phase III IMbrave050 trial of adjuvant atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) vs active surveillance in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at high risk of disease recurrence following resection or ablation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4002 Background: In IMbrave050, adjuvant atezo + bev demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in recurrence-free survival (RFS) vs active surveillance in patients (pts) at high risk of HCC recurrence following resection or ablation with curative intent. Further, the safety of atezo + bev was generally manageable. Here, we additionally report PRO data from IMbrave050. Methods: IMbrave050 (NCT04102098) enrolled HCC pts at high risk of recurrence following resection or ablation. Pts were randomized to Arm A (atezo + bev) or Arm B (active surveillance). Pts in Arm A received atezo 1200 mg + bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w for a period of one year (17 cycles). Pts in Arm B underwent active surveillance for one year and were eligible to crossover to atezo + bev following independent review facility (IRF) confirmation of recurrence. The primary endpoint was IRF-assessed RFS. Pre-specified exploratory analyses included change from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning, and social functioning. Clinically meaningful deterioration was defined as a ≥ 10-point decrease. Pts completed the IL42–EORTC QLQ-C30 (reduced) questionnaire at baseline and then at every odd treatment/surveillance visit through Cycle 17. Results: The ITT population included 334 pts in both Arms A and B. With a median follow-up time of 17.4 mo (clinical cutoff date: 21 Oct 2022), IRF-RFS HR was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.93; P = 0.0120). In the safety population, Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 41% of 332 Arm A pts and 13% of 330 Arm B pts. In ITT pts, IL42 completion rates remained ≥ 93% in both arms from baseline through treatment/surveillance Cycle 17. Mean scores at baseline in both arms were high and similar, as measured by the GHS/QoL and physical, role, emotional and social functioning scales. Mean changes from baseline were not considerable through Cycle 17 and were similar between arms as evidenced by overlapping 95% CIs. Pts’ GHS/QoL and functioning was maintained through Cycle 17, with no clinically meaningful deterioration observed at any time. Conclusions: Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in RFS was seen in pts receiving atezo + bev vs active surveillance. Atezo + bev safety was generally manageable, and consistent with the established safety profiles of each therapeutic agent and with the underlying disease. PRO outcome analyses revealed similar overall health-related QoL (HRQoL) and functioning between atezo + bev and active surveillance, and that treating high-risk pts with HCC with adjuvant atezo + bev following procedures with curative intent did not result in a clinically meaningful deterioration in HRQoL or function. Clinical trial information: NCT04102098 .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".