MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389480655 · doi:10.1016/j.iotech.2023.100692

LBA2 First-line (1L) durvalumab (D) + platinum-etoposide (EP) for patients (pts) with extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC): Primary results from the phase IIIb LUMINANCE study

2023· article· en· W4389480655 on OpenAlexaff
Niels Reinmuth, Mustafa Özgüroğlu, Natasha B. Leighl, Domenico Galetta, İlhan Hacıbekiroğlu, Jaromı́r Roubec, Mehmet Alı Nahıt Şendur, Emilio Bria, Christian Grohé, Hakan Harputluoğlu, Saadettin Kılıçkap, Silvia Novello, Petr Opálka, Ferdinando Riccardi, Rossitza Krasteva Ruseva, Susanne Lang, Moana Hodari, Naomi Donner, Filippo de Marinis

Bibliographic record

VenueImmuno-Oncology Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersSymphogenAstellas PharmaGilead SciencesDaiichi-SankyoAmgenPfizerAstraZenecaDaiichi Sankyo EuropeEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineDurvalumabInternal medicineNeutropeniaGastroenterologyEtoposideCancerChemotherapyImmunotherapyPembrolizumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phase 3 CASPIAN study (NCT03043872) of 1L D + EP (4 cycles) vs EP alone (up to 6 cycles) in pts with ES-SCLC (WHO performance status [PS] 0–1) established D + EP as a global standard of care. However, like most phase 3 registration studies, elements of the study design did not fully reflect real-world clinical practice. The phase 3b LUMINANCE study (NCT04774380) evaluated D + up to 6 cycles of EP in pts with ES-SCLC, including those with WHO PS 2. We report results of the primary analysis. Pts with treatment (tx)-naïve ES-SCLC and WHO PS 0–2 received D 1500 mg + EP Q3W for up to 6 cycles (investigator decision), followed by D Q4W until progression. Primary endpoints were rates of grade ≥3 AEs and immune-mediated AEs (imAEs); secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), PFS and OS. As of 12 June 2023, 152 pts from 32 sites/5 countries had received tx, median follow-up was 37.3 weeks and 23.7% were still receiving D. Median age was 64.0 years, 64.5% of pts were male and 99.3% were white. Median no. of D doses was 8.5 (Table); 63.8% of pts received carboplatin and 38.8% received cisplatin. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 59.2% of pts (Table); most common were neutropenia (26.3%), anaemia (9.9%) and neutrophil count decreased (7.9%). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 44/66 (66.7%) and 45/85 (52.9%) pts who received 1–4 or ≥5 cycles of EP*, respectively. imAEs occurred in 13.8% of pts; most common was hypothyroidism (6.6%). Confirmed ORR (95% CI) was 65.8% (57.7–73.3); median PFS (95% CI) was 6.2 (5.3–6.5) months (mo); and median OS (95% CI) was 13.1 (10.1–not estimable [NE]) mo. Numerically better outcomes were observed in pts who received ≥5 cycles of EP (Table).Table: LBA2Total (N=152)Median (range) D doses8.5 (1–19)EP cycles* Median (range) ≥4, n (%) ≥5, n (%) 6, n (%)– 5.0 (1–6) 133 (87.5) 85 (55.9) 74 (48.7)Any-cause AE, n (%) Grade ≥3 Serious Led to tx discontinuation Led to death† imAE142 (93.4) 90 (59.2) 49 (32.2) 22 (14.5) 15 (9.9) 21 (13.8)Total (N=152)1–4 cycles of EP‡ (n=68)≥5 cycles of EP‡ (n=84)Confirmed ORR, n (%) 95% CI100 (65.8) 57.7–73.332 (47.1) 34.8–59.668 (81.0) 70.9–88.7Median DoR, mo 95% CI5.1 4.9–5.34.8 3.3–5.25.2 5.0–6.3Median PFS, mo 95% CI6.2 5.3–6.54.6 3.7–4.66.5 6.3–7.6Median OS, mo 95% CI13.1 10.1–NE10.7 6.4–16.8NR 11.0–NE*Based on etoposide; 1 pt received no etoposide. †4 possibly related to EP; none to D. ‡Based on platinum. NR, not reached Open table in a new tab *Based on etoposide; 1 pt received no etoposide. †4 possibly related to EP; none to D. ‡Based on platinum. NR, not reached Safety and efficacy findings from LUMINANCE, including those pts who received ≥5 cycles of induction chemo-IO, were consistent with those observed in CASPIAN. The results further support the use of D + EP as 1L tx for pts with ES-SCLC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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 venueImmuno-Oncology TechnologySame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207