Dostarlimab for primary advanced or recurrent (A/R) endometrial cancer (EC): Outcomes by blinded independent central review (BICR) of the RUBY trial (ENGOT-EN6-NSGO/GOG-3031/RUBY).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5503 Background: RUBY (NCT03981796) evaluated the efficacy and safety of the anti–programmed death 1 (PD-1) dostarlimab + standard of care (SOC) carboplatin paclitaxel (CP) versus CP alone in A/R EC. The primary endpoint of PFS by investigator assessment (INV) per RECIST v1.1 was significantly longer with dostarlimab+CP than placebo (PBO)+CP in the mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H; HR 0.28; 95% CI 0.162–0.495) and overall populations (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.507–0.800). Here we present secondary efficacy endpoints by BICR. Methods: RUBY is a phase 3, global, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, PBO-controlled study. Patients (pts) with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent EC were randomized 1:1 to receive dostarlimab 500 mg, or PBO, plus carboplatin AUC 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W (6 cycles), followed by dostarlimab 1000 mg, or PBO, monotherapy Q6W for up to 3 y. Secondary endpoints by BICR assessment per RECIST v1.1 were PFS, ORR, DOR, and DCR in the overall and dMMR/MSI-H populations. Results: 494 pts were randomized (245:dostarlimab+CP; 249:PBO+CP); 47.8% had recurrent disease, 18.6% and 33.6% had primary stage III and IV disease, respectively. PFS by BICR was longer with dostarlimab+CP than PBO+CP in the dMMR/MSI-H (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.158–0.543) and overall populations (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.517–0.853; Table). Consistent benefits were seen with dostarlimab+CP for ORR, DCR, and DOR by BICR in the dMMR/MSI-H and overall populations (Table). Safety was previously reported. Conclusions: Dostarlimab+CP showed clinically meaningful improvement in BICR-assessed PFS in the dMMR/MSI-H and overall populations compared with CP alone. The HRs for PFS per BICR and per INV were consistent, which supports the reliability of PFS by INV in EC trials. Benefits were seen in all BICR-assessed endpoints, which were consistent with INV. Dostarlimab+CP represents a new SOC for pts with primary A/R EC. Clinical trial information: NCT03981796 . [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 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 | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".