IND227 phase III (P3) study of cisplatin/pemetrexed (CP) with or without pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with malignant pleural mesothelioma (PM): A CCTG, NCIN, and IFCT trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA8505 Background: The vast majority of pts with PM have unresectable disease, due to co-morbidities and/or advanced stage. In unresectable PM, standard first line treatment has been C(or carboplatin)P for 20 years but it is usually only moderately efficient, mostly on epithelioid (E)PM, with a global median overall survival (mOS) around 12 months (m), an improved quality-of-life (QoL), and mild toxicity. Trial CM743 demonstrated a significant improvement in mOS for nivolumab/ipilimumab (NI) over CP (18.1 versus 14.1 m), particularly for non-EPM, but 30% NI pts experienced > grade 3 toxicity. Thus, alternative therapies to improve mOS and tolerability are needed. Methods: Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) IND 227 is an academic, open-label, randomized P3 study of the CCTG, National Cancer Institute of Naples (NCIN) and Intergroupe Francophone de Cancérologie Thoracique (IFCT). The study was supported by grants to CCTG (Canadian Cancer Society -707213); Merck & Co. Inc provided pembrolizumab (pembro) and a grant to support study conduct. Untreated unresectable PM pts ≥ 18 years with ECOG performance status 0-1, adequate hematological, renal and hepatic function, no active autoimmune disease, brain metastases, interstitial lung disease or other active co-morbidities, were randomized 1:1 to CP with or without pembro and stratified by histology (E vs. non-E). Carboplatin was allowed if C contraindicated. Radiological review (BICR) and PD-L1 testing was centralised. mOS was the primary endpoint; median progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR), QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 + QLQ-LC13) and economic analysis were secondary. Results: A total 440 PM pts were randomized; 218 to CP and 222 to CP-pembro. Data cut-off was 16 September 2022 when the required events was observed. All pts were included in the analyses. Arms were well balanced. Seven pts opted not to receive CP. Median exposure of CP was comparable between arms. Subsequent treatment with chemotherapy was similar in both arms, while 59 pts in CP arm (vs 17 CP-pembro pts) received immunotherapeutics. Using a stratified log rank test, mOS was 17.3m vs 16.1m for CP-pembro vs CP (HR 0.79 95%CI 0.64-0.98; p=0.0324), mPFS was 7.13m vs 7.16m (HR 0.80, 95%CI 0.65-0.99, p=0.0372). BOR was significantly higher for CP-pembro (63% vs 40%, p < 0.0001). Grade 3 or higher pembro related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 19% of patients (88% were grade 3; the most common were fatigue (5%) and diarrhea, pneumonitis and irAE (2% each)), and 16% of pts discontinued pembro per protocol for related AEs (most commonly diarrhea and pneumonitis). Conclusions: With a statistically significant improvement in mOS and acceptable tolerability. CP-pembro is an option for treatment naïve, unresectable PM. Clinical trial information: NCT02784171 .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".