Nivolumab (NIVO) + chemotherapy (chemo) vs chemo as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC/EAC): 4 year (yr) follow-up of CheckMate 649.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
306 Background: NIVO + chemo demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit vs chemo and an acceptable safety profile in previously untreated, advanced non-HER2+ GC/GEJC/EAC, leading to approvals in many countries. NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful improvement in efficacy at 2 and 3-yr follow-ups. We present 4-yr follow-up results for NIVO + chemo vs chemo from CheckMate 649. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC were enrolled, regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. HER2+ patients (pts) were excluded. Randomized pts received NIVO (360 mg Q3W or 240 mg Q2W) + chemo (XELOX Q3W or FOLFOX Q2W), NIVO + ipilimumab, or chemo. Dual primary endpoints for NIVO + chemo vs chemo were OS and PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5. Results: 1581 pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo or chemo. At the 48-month (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate OS and PFS benefit vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and all randomized pts (Table) OS benefit with NIVO + chemo was observed in most prespecified subgroups. Objective response rates (ORR) were higher and responses were more durable with NIVO + chemo vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and all randomized pts (Table). In the exploratory analysis of OS by response at the 18-week landmark timepoint, there were numerically more pts achieving response with NIVO + chemo vs chemo, and median OS (95% CI) with NIVO + chemo was numerically longer in responders vs non-responders both in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 (20.5 [17.5–25.0] vs 14.0 [11.6–15.7]) and all randomized pts (19.4 [17.5–21.7] vs 13.1 [11.6–14.4]). No new safety signals were identified, consistent with the 3-yr follow-up. Conclusions: NIVO + chemo is the first PD-1 inhibitor/chemo combination to demonstrate long-term efficacy and acceptable safety after 4 yrs of follow up in previously untreated advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. These results are consistent with earlier follow-ups, further supporting NIVO + chemo as a standard 1L treatment in these pts. 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".